LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/CAROLYN M KOSOWSKI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Carolyn M Kosowski

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 144 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2014
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
75%vs 73% art-unit average+2 pts
higher than about 33% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Carolyn M Kosowski has allowed 108 of 144 decided applications.

108 allowed
36 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Carolyn M Kosowski maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 75%, computed as the percentage of applications that issued as allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned), across hundreds of decided applications. This figure aggregates the examiner's record and describes outcomes in past applications only.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines all art units under the examiner's authority into a single aggregate statistic. The allowance rate reflects historical disposition data and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures mask variation across individual art units; the examiner's record in any particular art unit may differ from this aggregate.

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 2431
144 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

75%
higher than about 33% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition144 decided applications

108 allowed
36 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 30.5mo
disposed 44.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 35.1 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 40
51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
56%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
72%

Interview benefit

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

without
72%
+23 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 19 decided applications with an interview and 125 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Carolyn M Kosowski

  • What is Carolyn M Kosowski's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 75%, measured as a percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across hundreds of decided applications in the examiner's pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record spans one art unit.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual applications may proceed differently based on claim scope, prior art, and examiner analysis.
  • What is Technology Center 2400?
    Technology Center 2400 is the examiner's assigned technology center, as shown in the public record. Specific subject-matter detail is available from the USPTO's technology-center directory.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Carolyn M Kosowski 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: 144 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