LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MICHELLE TAEUBER BECHTOLD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Michelle Taeuber Bechtold

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 209 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Michelle Taeuber Bechtold has allowed 160 of 209 decided applications (77%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

77% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2131 · 56%AU 2183 · 90%AU 2133 · 97%AU 2148 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Michelle Taeuber Bechtold has a pooled record of 209 disposed applications across four art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 160 were allowed, for an overall allowance rate of 77%. The allowance rate varies across her art units, ranging from 56% to 97%. This pooled figure represents her aggregate performance across all four art units and reflects historical disposition patterns, not a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates performance across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 77% overall allowance rate is a historical average of decided applications and does not forecast the outcome of any individual case. Allowance rates vary by art unit (56% to 97%), which reflects differences in subject matter, rejection patterns, and prosecution complexity. The pooled figure serves as context for the examiner's overall record but is not predictive of any pending application's disposition.

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 2131
88 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION49 / 39 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.3 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness83%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW62%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW43%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 60 decided applications with an interview and 28 without.

ART UNIT 2183
82 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION74 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.6 moart unit avg 25 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.5 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness72%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 27 without.

ART UNIT 2133
37 APPS · 97% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

97% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION36 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.2 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.4 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility6% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness66%

Based on 37 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2148
2 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION1 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION40.2 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.3 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michelle Taeuber Bechtold

  • What is Michelle Taeuber Bechtold's overall allowance rate?
    Her pooled allowance rate is 77% across 209 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100. This is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of outcome for any specific application.
  • How many art units does she examine?
    Michelle Taeuber Bechtold has a public record spanning four art units in TC 2100: 2131, 2133, 2148, and 2183.
  • Does her allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across her art units range from 56% to 97%, reflecting differences in subject matter and prosecution patterns within TC 2100. The pooled 77% figure is the aggregate across all four units.
  • What does the pooled record represent?
    The pooled record shows historical disposition data combined across all four art units. It describes past decisions on 209 applications and does not predict outcomes on any pending case or indicate performance on applications in any specific art unit.
◈ 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 Michelle Taeuber Bechtold 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: 209 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