Examiner Mehmet B Geckil has allowed 54 of 66 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Mehmet B Geckil maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 66 disposed applications, 54 were allowed and 12 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 82%. This figure reflects the examiner's pooled record across all assigned art units and describes past dispositions only. The breadth of the record spans multiple art-unit areas within TC 2100, meaning the aggregate allowance rate reflects work across different subject classifications.
A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units and technology areas. The allowance rate reported here—82% over 66 disposed applications—is a historical aggregate and does not forecast the outcome of any individual application. Pooled figures mask variation across art units; detailed per-art-unit records appear separately. Use aggregate data to understand overall patterns, not to predict specific prosecution outcomes.
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 41 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Mehmet B Geckil 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: 66 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