Examiner Mikayla Chubb has allowed 213 of 260 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Mikayla Chubb has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning two art units. Across 260 disposed applications, 213 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 82%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 59% to 89%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across both units and describes the examiner's historical record without predicting the outcome of any individual application.
A pooled record combines statistics from multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The 82% allowance rate represents historical outcomes across all decided cases in both units together. This aggregate does not predict any specific application's outcome and does not reflect whether the examiner examines differently across units. Individual art-unit rates may differ from the pooled rate.
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 43 decided applications with an interview and 156 without.
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 33 decided applications with an interview and 28 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Mikayla Chubb 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: 260 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