LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/JOIYA M CLOUD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Joiya M Cloud

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 124 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2013
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
53%vs 64% art-unit average11 pts
higher than about 26% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Joiya M Cloud has allowed 66 of 124 decided applications.

66 allowed
58 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Joiya M Cloud maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 53%, meaning that 53% of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) have issued as patents. This rate represents the examiner's pooled record and reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition. The allowance rate does not include pending applications and is calculated only from applications with final decisions.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art unit(s). The 53% allowance rate describes past outcomes and is a historical snapshot, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures smooth variations across different art units and technology areas within the examiner's assignment. Individual application results vary based on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors not captured in aggregate statistics.

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 2444
124 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

53%
higher than about 26% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition124 decided applications

66 allowed
58 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 35mo
disposed 60.5mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
84%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
56%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
46%

Interview benefit

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

without
56%
5 pts
with
51%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 63 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Joiya M Cloud

  • What is Joiya M Cloud's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 53% across hundreds of decided applications, meaning 53% of all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications have issued as patents.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Joiya M Cloud's public record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate include pending applications?
    No. The allowance rate is calculated only from decided applications (allowed and abandoned). Pending applications are excluded from this statistic.
  • Is the 53% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes past pooled outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Results depend on claim scope, prior art, and other case details.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Joiya M Cloud 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: 124 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