Examiner Peter D Coughlan has allowed 383 of 610 decided applications (63%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Peter D Coughlan maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 610 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 63%, reflecting 383 allowed and 227 abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 53% to 77% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes depending on the specific art unit within TC 2100 handling an application. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units and describes historical outcomes only.
A pooled record combines outcomes from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. This figure describes past dispositions and does not constitute a prediction of outcomes for any specific application. Variation across art units—shown by the range of 53% to 77%—reflects differences in subject matter and application complexity within TC 2100. Understanding which art unit handles a given application is necessary to contextualize the aggregate 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 116 decided applications with an interview and 168 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 48 decided applications with an interview and 162 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 65 decided applications with an interview and 51 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Peter D Coughlan 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: 610 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