LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/AUSTIN J MOREAU
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Austin J Moreau

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 438 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
82%vs 67% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner Austin J Moreau has allowed 359 of 438 decided applications.

359 allowed
79 abandoned
Plus 48 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (67%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2446 · 80%AU 2417 · 100%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Austin J Moreau maintains an 82% allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His public record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 100% across these art units. This figure represents the share of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending matters. The pooled rate reflects the examiner's aggregate record across multiple art units and does not predict the outcome of any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units where an examiner has decided applications. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions and serves as historical context only. Pooled figures mask variation among individual art units; separate art-unit records are available elsewhere on this page. Historical rates are not predictions of future outcomes on any specific application.

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 2446
389 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

80%
higher than about 56% of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition389 decided applications

310 allowed
79 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.7mo
disposed 30.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 26 mo, disposed 41.9 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
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
88%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
29%

Interview benefit

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

without
66%
+22 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 241 decided applications with an interview and 148 without.

ART UNIT 2417
97 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than 7 of the 11 examiners with published rates in art unit 2417
AU avg 89%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 11 examiners with published rates in art unit 2417; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 12 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 11 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition49 decided applications

49 allowed
Plus 48 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23mo
0
24mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 37.4 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 19
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
94%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
19%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Austin J Moreau

  • What is Austin J Moreau's overall allowance rate?
    82%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 80% to 100% across these art units.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled rate reflects past decisions and is not a prediction for any specific application. Art-unit-specific records are provided separately.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Austin J Moreau 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: 486 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