Examiner Michael Alsip has allowed 592 of 769 decided applications (77%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Michael Alsip has a public record spanning four art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 769 disposed applications, 592 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 77%. The allowance rate varies across the art units he works in, ranging from 54% to 100%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate outcome of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending filings. The breadth of his record across multiple art units means this overall rate reflects work in different subject areas within TC 2100.
This pooled record aggregates data from four separate art units, each of which may have different technological focuses and examination patterns. The overall 77% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all decided cases, not a prediction for any individual application. Pooled figures mask variation: allowance rates differ substantially across art units. Any specific application's outcome depends on claim scope, prior art, and examiner judgment in that particular art unit, which are not captured in aggregate statistics.
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 input/output (I/O) data transfer.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 155 decided applications with an interview and 292 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 129 without.
Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 79 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Michael Alsip 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: 818 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