LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Michael Robert Cammarata

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 243 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2023
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
72%vs 69% art-unit average+3 pts
higher than about 50% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 39 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Michael Robert Cammarata has allowed 174 of 243 decided applications.

174 allowed
69 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Michael Robert Cammarata maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate stands at 72% of decided applications (allowed and abandoned, excluding pending filings) across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the examiner's historical record on applications that have reached final disposition. The allowance rate is computed from applications with completed prosecution histories and does not predict outcomes on any individual pending application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's activity across one art unit in TC 2400. The allowance rate represents past outcomes on applications that reached decision—allowed or abandoned—and describes historical performance only. Pooled figures mask variation within art units and carry no predictive force for any specific application. Public statistics describe what has occurred, not what will occur in future prosecution.

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.1 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 2486
243 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

72%
higher than about 50% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 39 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition243 decided applications

174 allowed
69 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 14.8mo
disposed 25.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.8 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
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
83%

Interview benefit

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

without
52%
+38 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 124 decided applications with an interview and 119 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michael Robert Cammarata

  • What is Michael Robert Cammarata's overall allowance rate?
    72% of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) have been allowed. This figure spans hundreds of decided applications pooled across all his art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record covers one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What technology does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's record is in Technology Center 2400. For detailed art-unit breakdowns and subject-matter specifics, consult the technology center's classification guide.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Michael Robert Cammarata 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: 243 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