LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Elisabeth Benoit Magloire

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 944 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
91%vs 86% weighted peer average+5 pts

Examiner Elisabeth Benoit Magloire has allowed 859 of 944 decided applications.

859 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (86%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2471 · 92%AU 2416 · 82%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Elisabeth Benoit Magloire maintains a pooled allowance rate of 91% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 82% to 92% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art-unit assignment. This pooled figure represents the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) and does not include pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate rather than unit-specific figures. This aggregate reflects past decisions on completed applications and provides historical context. The range across art units shows that outcomes differ by subject matter assignment. Pooled statistics describe what has occurred, not what will occur in any particular case.

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 2471
938 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 56% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471
AU avg 87%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition895 decided applications

819 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.2mo
disposed 29.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.9 mo, disposed 32.5 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 22
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
72%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 71
66%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+6 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 117 decided applications with an interview and 778 without.

ART UNIT 2416
49 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 78% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition49 decided applications

40 allowed
9 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 40mo
disposed 61.5mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Elisabeth Benoit Magloire

  • What is Elisabeth Benoit Magloire's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 91% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 2 art units.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 82% to 92% across the examiner's art units, showing variation by art-unit assignment.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Elisabeth Benoit Magloire 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: 987 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