LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/AIDAN EDWARD SHAUGHNESSY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Aidan Edward Shaughnessy

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 13 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
23%vs 68% art-unit average45 pts
higher than about 6% of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 48 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 47 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Aidan Edward Shaughnessy has allowed 3 of 13 decided applications.

3 allowed
10 abandoned
Plus 50 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Aidan Edward Shaughnessy has a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning a single art unit. Across a small number of decided applications, the allowance rate is 23%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed out of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's pooled record. The allowance rate is computed from decided applications only; pending applications are excluded from this calculation. The record covers applications in TC 2400.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units. The allowance rate of 23% describes the historical proportion of allowed applications among those decided and is calculated from past dispositions only. Pooled figures do not account for variation across individual art units and are not predictions of outcomes in any specific application. The aggregate rate provides context for the examiner's overall pattern of decisions across their assigned work.

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 2432
63 APPS · 23% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

23%
higher than about 6% of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 48 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 47 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition13 decided applications

3 allowed
10 abandoned
Plus 50 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.2mo
disposed 42.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.5 mo, disposed 42.6 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 37
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
98%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
98%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
48%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Aidan Edward Shaughnessy

  • What is the overall allowance rate for this examiner?
    The allowance rate is 23%, calculated as allowed applications divided by all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) in the pooled record. Pending applications are not included in this calculation.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record covers 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate tell me?
    The allowance rate describes the historical proportion of allowed outcomes among decided applications. It is not a prediction of any specific application and does not account for the unique facts, claims, or prior art in individual cases.
  • Why is the record pooled across art units?
    The pooled record aggregates all decided applications to show the examiner's overall pattern. Individual art-unit records are available separately and may show different rates due to differences in subject matter and application complexity.
◈ 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 Aidan Edward Shaughnessy 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: 63 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