LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/GERALD A SMARTH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Gerald A Smarth

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 865 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
85%vs 70% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner Gerald A Smarth has allowed 738 of 865 decided applications.

738 allowed
127 abandoned
Plus 47 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (70%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2478 · 88%AU 2446 · 41%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Gerald A Smarth maintains a pooled allowance rate of 85% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. Allowance rates across these art units range from 41% to 88%. The pooled figure of 85% represents the share of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. This record reflects the examiner's historical dispositions across the assigned art units and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units within TC 2400. Pooled statistics combine allowance data from different art-unit populations and thus describe past decisions in aggregate, not the outcome of any individual case. The range shown reflects variation among the examiner's assigned art units. Pooled figures are historical descriptors only and are not predictive of any pending or future application.

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 2478
871 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 86% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition824 decided applications

721 allowed
Plus 47 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.4mo
disposed 33.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 42.7 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 25
13%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
53%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
19%

Interview benefit

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

without
85%
+8 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 275 decided applications with an interview and 549 without.

ART UNIT 2446
41 APPS · 41% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

41%
higher than about 28% of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition41 decided applications

17 allowed
24 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39.2mo
disposed 63.3mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 26 mo, disposed 41.9 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
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
50%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Based on 41 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Gerald A Smarth

  • What is Gerald A Smarth's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 85% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Gerald A Smarth's public record spans 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 41% to 88%.
  • Does the pooled rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate across multiple art units and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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.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 Gerald A Smarth 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: 912 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