LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/MELVIN C MARCELO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Melvin C Marcelo

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,036 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
89%vs 74% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner Melvin C Marcelo has allowed 920 of 1,036 decided applications.

920 allowed
Plus 31 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (74%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2463 · 89%AU 2416 · 79%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Melvin C Marcelo maintains an allowance rate of 89% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 79% to 89% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects the proportion of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) that resulted in allowance, and does not include pending applications. The range indicates variation in allowance rates between the individual art units in his portfolio.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's statistics across multiple art units into a single overall figure. The 89% allowance rate shown here is a historical summary of decided applications across all art units combined. This aggregate does not predict the outcome of any specific pending application. Individual art units within an examiner's portfolio may have different allowance rates; the range provided reflects that variation. Pooled data describes past record only.

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 →

The record, art unit by art unit.2 art units

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 2463
1,000 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 71% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition969 decided applications

867 allowed
Plus 31 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.1mo
disposed 28.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.2 mo, disposed 36.3 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility
AU 21
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
49%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
44%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
37%

Interview benefit

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

without
90%
7 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 111 decided applications with an interview and 858 without.

ART UNIT 2416
67 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

79%
higher than about 74% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition67 decided applications

53 allowed
14 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 34.4mo
disposed 52.1mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility
AU 32
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
0%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 78
0%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Melvin C Marcelo

  • What is Melvin C Marcelo's overall allowance rate?
    89%, calculated from his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across all art units in TC 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 79% to 89% across his art units.
  • What does the pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled 89% figure is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Melvin C Marcelo has a public record within Technology Center 2400. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated July 22, 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: 1,067 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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