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

Examiner Christopher A Revak

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 931 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
87%vs 73% art-unit average+14 pts
higher than about 59% 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 Christopher A Revak has allowed 812 of 931 decided applications.

812 allowed
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christopher A Revak maintains a pooled allowance rate of 87% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His public record spans a single art unit. The allowance rate reflects the percentage of applications in his decided set—those allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending applications. This figure represents his historical record across the pooled applications and does not characterize performance on any individual case.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction. The overall allowance rate is a historical average of past decided applications and describes what occurred, not what will occur in any future examination. Aggregate figures mask variation across individual art units and application types. Individual applications are examined on their merits according to patent law.

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
931 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

87%
higher than about 59% 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.

Disposition931 decided applications

812 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.7mo
disposed 33.2mo
0
36mo
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
25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
64%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
29%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
41%

Interview benefit

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

without
86%
+8 pts
with
94%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 200 decided applications with an interview and 731 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher A Revak

  • What is Christopher A Revak's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 87% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Christopher A Revak's public record spans one art unit within TC 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    It is the percentage of applications that were allowed, expressed as a share of all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned). Pending applications are excluded from this calculation.
  • Is this rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical summary of past decided applications and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific 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.

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 Christopher A Revak 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: 931 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