LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MATTHEW J ELLIS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Matthew J Ellis

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 344 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Matthew J Ellis has allowed 243 of 344 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

71% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2152 · 76%AU 2165 · 57%AU 2153 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Matthew J Ellis maintains a pooled allowance rate of 71% across 344 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans three art units: 2152, 2153, and 2165. Of 375 total applications, 243 were allowed and 101 were abandoned. The allowance rate across his art units ranges from 57% to 84%, reflecting variation in the decided record among the different art units in which he works.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units in TC 2100, combining different subject areas and examination histories into a single profile. The 71% allowance rate describes the examiner's past record on decided applications and does not constitute a prediction about any specific application. Aggregate figures mask individual art-unit variation; the range from 57% to 84% shows that outcomes differ across the art units represented here.

These are aggregate statistics from this examiner's past public record — not predictions about any specific application. The per-art-unit figures below show how the record varies across art units. Our approach to patent prosecution →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by art unit.

Each section benchmarks this examiner against that art unit's average. Figures are this examiner's own public record within the art unit; the overall rate above pools them.

◈ PRIMARY · ART UNIT 2152
191 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION146 / 45 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.7 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 129 decided applications with an interview and 62 without.

ART UNIT 2165
115 APPS · 57% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

57% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION65 / 50 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.1 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW15%+59 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 81 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.

ART UNIT 2153
69 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION32 / 6 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.6 moart unit avg 27.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51 moart unit avg 41.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Matthew J Ellis

  • What is Matthew J Ellis's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 71%, based on 344 disposed (decided) applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans three art units: 2152, 2153, and 2165, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 57% to 84% across the art units in which he maintains a substantial record.
  • What does this pooled rate mean for my application?
    This aggregate rate describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual results may vary by art unit and application-specific facts.
◈ RESPONDING TO AN OFFICE ACTION

Strategy, not paperwork. Talk to the attorney doing the work.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. Book a consultation to discuss your matter with the attorney who would handle it.

Book a 30-minute consultation →
METHODOLOGY & DISCLOSURES

Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Matthew J Ellis has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 2026. The overall allowance rate is total allowed divided by total decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units — not an average of the per-art-unit rates; pending applications are excluded. Figures are rounded for display. Pooled sample: 375 applications.

Lynch LLP is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Examiner statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data.

These statistics describe past examiner behavior and do not predict the outcome of any particular application. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Where this page compares an examiner's allowance rate to an art-unit average, that comparison is a factual description of the public record, not a characterization of any individual examiner's conduct or competence.

This page is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing it. Full disclaimers →

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING — Sean Lynch, Partner, Lynch LLP