LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Edan Orgad

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 56 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
32%vs 82% weighted peer average50 pts

Examiner Edan Orgad has allowed 18 of 56 decided applications.

18 allowed
38 abandoned
Plus 22 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (82%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2414 · 42%AU 2439 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Edan Orgad maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 32%, meaning that of applications with final disposition (allowed or abandoned), 32% resulted in allowance. The allowance rate figure reflects the pooled record and describes past outcomes only, not any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates decisions across multiple art units within TC 2400. Pooled allowance rates describe the examiner's historical outcomes across different subject areas combined. The 32% figure is a summary of past dispositions and is not a prediction about any specific application. Per-art-unit records, where available separately, may show variation from the pooled rate.

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 2414
65 APPS · 42% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

42%
higher than about 0% of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2414
AU avg 85%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2414; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 25 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 23 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition43 decided applications

18 allowed
25 abandoned
Plus 22 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.6mo
disposed 33.7mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.9 mo, disposed 30.9 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 32
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
88%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
61%
ART UNIT 2439
13 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% 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.

Disposition13 decided applications

13 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.4mo
disposed 41.8mo
0
48mo
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
20%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 94
80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
20%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Edan Orgad

  • What is Edan Orgad's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 32% across dozens of decided applications pooled across all art units. This is the share of applications with final disposition (allowed or abandoned) that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 2 art units (2414 and 2439) in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my specific application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes past outcomes across multiple art units combined and is not a prediction for any individual application. Variation may exist within specific art units or technology areas.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (those with final disposition) that were allowed, excluding pending applications.
◈ 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.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree 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 Edan Orgad 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: 78 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