LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/CHRISTIAN A LAFORGIA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christian A Laforgia

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 291 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2013
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
76%vs 68% art-unit average+8 pts
higher than about 53% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Christian A Laforgia has allowed 221 of 291 decided applications.

221 allowed
70 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christian A Laforgia maintains a record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate stands at 76% across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in his record. The allowance rate reflects outcomes on applications that reached a final disposition, excluding those pending. This record provides a historical view of past decisions and is not predictive of outcomes on any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units into a single allowance rate. This aggregate figure describes past examiner outcomes and is a historical snapshot, not a forecast for any specific application. Different art units within TC 2400 may have distinct characteristics, technology subfields, and applicant profiles. An aggregate allowance rate reflects the combined record but does not predict any particular application's path or outcome.

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 2439
291 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 53% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition291 decided applications

221 allowed
70 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.3mo
disposed 48.7mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.9 mo, disposed 44.5 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
58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
56%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 94
69%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
39%

Interview benefit

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

without
73%
+15 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 227 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christian A Laforgia

  • What is Christian A Laforgia's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 76%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned). This is a historical record and is not predictive of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400. The allowance rate shown is pooled across this unit's decided applications.
  • What does the allowance rate include and exclude?
    The allowance rate includes applications that were allowed or abandoned (decided applications). Pending applications are excluded. The rate does not measure filing volume or indicate outcomes on any pending or future application.
◈ 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.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 Christian A Laforgia 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: 291 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