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

Examiner Michael T Martinez

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 53 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2012
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
43%vs 58% weighted peer average15 pts

Examiner Michael T Martinez has allowed 23 of 53 decided applications.

23 allowed
30 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (58%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2442 · 48%AU 2441 · 35%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Michael T Martinez maintains a pooled allowance rate of 43% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans two art units, with allowance rates ranging from 35% to 48% across these units. The 43% figure represents the share of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that resulted in allowance, pooled across all art units in his record. This rate reflects historical disposition patterns and does not predict the outcome of any specific pending application.

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's record aggregates applications across multiple art units within TC 2400. The pooled allowance rate of 43% describes past decisions across all these units combined. A pooled figure masks variation—allowance rates differ among individual art units, ranging from 35% to 48%. This aggregate percentage is historical data and does not forecast any individual 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 →

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 2442
33 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

48%
higher than about 40% of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442
AU avg 50%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition33 decided applications

16 allowed
17 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 32.5mo
disposed 49.2mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.1 mo, disposed 43.6 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 39
44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
50%

Based on 33 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2441
20 APPS · 35% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

35%
higher than about 5% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition20 decided applications

7 allowed
13 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.6mo
disposed 42mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 40.1 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 42
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Based on 20 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michael T Martinez

  • What is Michael T Martinez's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 43% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the percentage of his decided applications that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Michael T Martinez has a public record spanning two art units within TC 2400.
  • Does his allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across his art units range from 35% to 48%. The pooled 43% figure aggregates these different rates.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 T Martinez 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: 53 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