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

Examiner Christopher G Findley

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 808 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
83%vs 66% art-unit average+17 pts
higher than about 80% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 45 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Christopher G Findley has allowed 668 of 808 decided applications.

668 allowed
140 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christopher G Findley's public record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 83%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending cases. The record reflects outcomes on applications that have reached a final disposition in his assigned art unit.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decisions across all art units where the examiner has worked. The allowance rate of 83% describes the examiner's past outcomes on decided applications and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Aggregate statistics describe historical patterns only. Individual applications vary based on their own facts, claims, prior art, and prosecution history.

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 2482
854 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 80% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 45 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition808 decided applications

668 allowed
140 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.2mo
disposed 33.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 mo, disposed 38.4 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 13
12%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
69%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
66%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
17%

Interview benefit

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

without
82%
+7 pts
with
89%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 91 decided applications with an interview and 717 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher G Findley

  • What is Christopher G Findley's allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 83% across hundreds of decided applications. This is the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned), excluding pending applications.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    This pooled record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400. The overall figures represent outcomes aggregated across that art unit.
  • Does this allowance rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The 83% figure describes past outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction for any specific pending application. Outcomes depend on the individual merits, claims, prior art, and prosecution history of each case.
◈ 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 Christopher G Findley 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: 854 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