LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Caroline H Jahnige

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 398 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
72%vs 65% art-unit average+7 pts
higher than about 49% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Caroline H Jahnige has allowed 288 of 398 decided applications.

288 allowed
110 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Caroline H Jahnige maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Her pooled allowance rate stands at 72% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The 72% figure reflects her overall record in this technology center and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units in Technology Center 2400. The allowance rate of 72% describes her historical record—the proportion of decided cases that resulted in allowance—and reflects patterns across multiple art units combined. Pooled figures describe the past and are not predictions about outcomes in any individual application or art unit.

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 2451
398 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

72%
higher than about 49% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition398 decided applications

288 allowed
110 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 16.6mo
disposed 32mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.8 mo, disposed 43.5 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 43
35%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
53%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
56%

Interview benefit

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

without
62%
+19 pts
with
81%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 217 decided applications with an interview and 181 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Caroline H Jahnige

  • What is Caroline H Jahnige's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 72%, measured across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units in Technology Center 2400. This represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The 72% allowance rate is the share of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that resulted in allowance. It excludes pending applications and describes historical outcomes, not predictions for future cases.
◈ 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 Caroline H Jahnige 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: 398 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