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

Examiner Michael Edward Cocchi

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 188 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 Michael Edward Cocchi has allowed 74 of 188 decided applications (39%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

39% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2188 · 48%AU 2147 · 34%AU 2128 · 37%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Michael Edward Cocchi maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 188 decided applications, he issued 74 allowances, for an overall allowance rate of 39%. The allowance rate ranges from 34% to 48% across these art units. His record reflects work in multiple areas within TC 2100, with variation in outcomes across different art-unit cohorts. Of 242 total applications in his record, 114 were abandoned and 74 were allowed.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units and reflects the examiner's past decisions in TC 2100. The 39% overall allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided applications only—pending cases are excluded. The range of 34% to 48% across art units illustrates variation in allowance rates by art-unit cohort. These figures are a factual summary of past work and do not predict the outcome of any specific application or constitute guidance on prosecution strategy.

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 2188
114 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION29 / 31 / 54allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.8 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.6 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility94% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness66%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW5%+67 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 21 without.

ART UNIT 2147
77 APPS · 34% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

34% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 44%
DISPOSITION26 / 51 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.5 moart unit avg 46.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility73% · art unit 74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness74%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW43%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW13%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 54 decided applications with an interview and 23 without.

ART UNIT 2128
51 APPS · 37% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.

37% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION19 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.8 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.1 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness82%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW54%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW22%+32 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 24 decided applications with an interview and 27 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michael Edward Cocchi

  • What is Michael Edward Cocchi's overall allowance rate?
    Over 188 decided applications, his overall allowance rate is 39%.
  • How many art units does his record span?
    His record spans three art units (2128, 2147, 2188) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 34% to 48% across these art units.
  • What does the total-applications figure include?
    Total applications (242) includes pending, allowed, and abandoned applications. The allowance rate (39%) is calculated only on the 188 decided applications.
◈ 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 Edward Cocchi 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: 242 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