Examiner Matthew Lee Lewis has allowed 0 of 2 decided applications (0%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Matthew Lee Lewis has a public record of 36 total applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Two applications have been disposed of (allowed or abandoned). The allowance rate across these two decided applications is 0%, meaning zero were allowed. Two applications were abandoned. The examiner's practice spans one art unit. This pooled record reflects outcomes on a limited decided count and does not characterize performance on pending applications.
This profile aggregates the examiner's record across all art units in TC 2100 into a single pooled allowance rate. The rate (0%) is computed from only the decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending filings. Pooled figures describe historical outcomes and are not predictions of any specific application's disposition. For art-unit-specific data, refer to the separate per-unit section.
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 →
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.
Based on 36 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Matthew Lee Lewis 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: 36 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