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

Examiner Christopher T Wyllie

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 672 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
60%vs 75% weighted peer average15 pts

Examiner Christopher T Wyllie has allowed 405 of 672 decided applications.

405 allowed
267 abandoned
Plus 44 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (75%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2465 · 61%AU 2419 · 20%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christopher T Wyllie maintains a public record spanning 2 art units within Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 60%. This rate reflects the percentage of applications in his pooled record that were allowed, measured against all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and does not indicate performance on any individual application or pending matter.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines results from multiple art units, creating an aggregate view of past dispositions. The 60% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across decided applications and serves as a statistical summary of the examiner's record. Aggregate figures do not predict outcomes on specific applications, nor do they account for differences in art-unit subject matter, application complexity, or individual prosecution history. The data is correlational and historical.

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 2465
701 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

61%
higher than about 21% of the 39 examiners with published rates in art unit 2465
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 39 examiners with published rates in art unit 2465; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 43 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 39 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition657 decided applications

402 allowed
255 abandoned
Plus 44 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23mo
disposed 49mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.3 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 21
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
77%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
43%

Interview benefit

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

without
56%
+27 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 135 decided applications with an interview and 522 without.

ART UNIT 2419
15 APPS · 20% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

20%
higher than about 9% of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition15 decided applications

3 allowed
12 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.6mo
disposed 44.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 31.1 mo, disposed 44.4 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher T Wyllie

  • What is Christopher T Wyllie's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate across all decided applications is 60%, meaning 60% of applications that reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned) were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Christopher T Wyllie's public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate across hundreds of past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • Why does the record combine multiple art units?
    This pooled view aggregates the examiner's outcomes across all art units in his record. Separate art-unit figures are provided elsewhere on this page for more granular reference.
◈ 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 Christopher T Wyllie 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: 716 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