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

Examiner Christopher Anthony Reyes

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 19 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
79%vs 74% weighted peer average+5 pts

Examiner Christopher Anthony Reyes has allowed 15 of 19 decided applications.

15 allowed
4 abandoned
Plus 54 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (74%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2475 · 76%AU 2472 · 100%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christopher Anthony Reyes maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across 2 art units. Over a small number of decided applications, his allowance rate is 79%. This rate reflects the percentage of applications in his pooled record that received an allowance or abandonment decision. The record spans multiple art units within TC 2400, and the allowance figure represents the aggregate outcome across those units rather than the performance within any single unit.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and reflects past dispositions only. The 79% allowance rate describes what occurred in decided applications already closed—it is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures mask variation between individual art units; per-unit data appears in separate sections of this page.

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 2475
71 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 35% of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2475
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2475; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition17 decided applications

13 allowed
4 abandoned
Plus 54 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.6mo
disposed 38.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.6 mo, disposed 38.1 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 22
16%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
46%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
11%
ART UNIT 2472
2 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than about 76% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2472
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2472; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 47 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 45 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition2 decided applications

2 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 29.5mo
disposed 35.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.3 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 22
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
50%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%

Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher Anthony Reyes

  • What is Examiner Reyes's overall allowance rate?
    79% of his decided applications received an allowance or abandonment decision across Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Two art units: 2472 and 2475.
  • Does this pooled record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The 79% allowance rate describes past closed applications only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • Why is the range shown (76%–76%) different from the overall rate (79%)?
    The range reflects the allowance rates within individual art units, which differ from the pooled aggregate rate across all units.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Christopher Anthony Reyes 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: 73 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