LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MICHAEL D YAARY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Michael D Yaary

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,154 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Michael D Yaary has allowed 1,004 of 1,154 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2182 · 93%AU 2193 · 74%AU 2151 · 100%AU 2183 · 90%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Michael D Yaary has a public record of 1,191 applications across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 1,154 disposed applications, 1,004 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 87%. The examiner's allowance rates across these art units range from 74% to 100%. This pooled figure reflects outcomes across multiple art units with varying examination patterns and does not represent a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates results across multiple art units, obscuring variation among them. The overall allowance rate of 87% describes past outcomes on 1,154 decided applications and is historical data only—not a forecast. The range (74% to 100%) shows that allowance rates differ meaningfully among the art units covered. Pooled statistics describe the examiner's aggregate record and do not predict the outcome of any specific application.

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 2182
575 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION534 / 41 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.6 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.3 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness36% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 117 decided applications with an interview and 458 without.

ART UNIT 2193
392 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION290 / 102 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37.1 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.7 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)46%
§103 — Obviousness62% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness13%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW70%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 92 decided applications with an interview and 300 without.

ART UNIT 2151
153 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION116 / 0 / 37allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.8 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.2 moart unit avg 44.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness39% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW100%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.

ART UNIT 2183
71 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION64 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.1 moart unit avg 25 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness45% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness10%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 54 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michael D Yaary

  • What is Michael D Yaary's overall allowance rate?
    87% on 1,154 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned combined). This is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2151, 2182, 2183, 2193) in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 74% to 100%. Individual art-unit records are available separately and may differ materially from the pooled figure.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    The pooled record describes past outcomes in aggregate and is historical data only. It does not predict any individual application's outcome. Factors specific to your application—claim scope, prior art, and art-unit assignment—are independent of these statistics.
◈ 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 Michael D Yaary 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: 1,191 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