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

Examiner Joseph M Cousins

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 342 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
69%vs 58% art-unit average+11 pts
higher than about 50% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2459
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2459; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Joseph M Cousins has allowed 237 of 342 decided applications.

237 allowed
105 abandoned
Plus 29 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Joseph M Cousins maintains a pooled allowance rate of 69% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His public record spans one art unit. The allowance rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided applications—those marked allowed or abandoned—in his pooled record. This figure describes past outcomes and is not a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across all of Cousins' art units, presenting an overall allowance rate. Aggregate statistics describe historical disposition patterns and are not predictions of how any particular application will be examined. The record reflects decided applications only; pending cases are excluded. Individual art-unit profiles, where available separately, provide more granular subject-matter context.

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 2459
371 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

69%
higher than about 50% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2459
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2459; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition342 decided applications

237 allowed
105 abandoned
Plus 29 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.4mo
disposed 37.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.3 mo, disposed 35.7 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 39
39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
59%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
70%

Interview benefit

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

without
60%
+14 pts
with
74%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 225 decided applications with an interview and 117 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Joseph M Cousins

  • What is Joseph M Cousins' overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 69%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications. This is the share of applications allowed among all decided cases (allowed plus abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Cousins' public record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this record predict outcomes for my application?
    No. Pooled historical allowance rates describe past dispositions and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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.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 Joseph M Cousins 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: 371 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