LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/JOSE L PEREZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jose L Perez

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 227 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
54%vs 77% weighted peer average23 pts

Examiner Jose L Perez has allowed 123 of 227 decided applications.

123 allowed
104 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (77%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2474 · 61%AU 2479 · 53%AU 2413 · 47%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jose L Perez has a pooled allowance rate of 54% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 3 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 47% to 61% across these art units. This pooled figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in his record. The rate does not predict outcomes for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates decided applications across multiple art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction for any particular application. Individual art units within the pooled record may have different allowance rates; the range shown reflects variation across the examiner's art units. The pooled rate is useful context for understanding the examiner's overall record in TC 2400.

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.3 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 2474
107 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

61%
higher than about 11% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2474
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2474; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition67 decided applications

41 allowed
26 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.6mo
disposed 58.7mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.7 mo, disposed 38.7 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
34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
99%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
91%

Interview benefit

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

without
29%
+47 pts
with
76%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 46 decided applications with an interview and 21 without.

ART UNIT 2479
103 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

53%
higher than about 0% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2479
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2479; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition103 decided applications

55 allowed
48 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.6mo
disposed 43.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 mo, disposed 36.5 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 26
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
65%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
91%

Interview benefit

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

without
39%
+39 pts
with
78%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 66 without.

ART UNIT 2413
57 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

47%
higher than about 7% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2413
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2413; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition57 decided applications

27 allowed
30 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.9mo
disposed 57.6mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 20 mo, disposed 36.3 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 23
51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
94%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
92%

Interview benefit

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

without
30%
+27 pts
with
57%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 20 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jose L Perez

  • What is Jose L Perez's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 54% across hundreds of decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 47% to 61% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does this allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Jose L Perez 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: 267 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