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

Examiner Josnel Jeudy

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 870 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
84%vs 75% art-unit average+9 pts
higher than about 75% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438
AU avg 75%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Josnel Jeudy has allowed 732 of 870 decided applications.

732 allowed
138 abandoned
Plus 35 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Josnel Jeudy maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 84%. This figure represents the percentage of applications in the decided pool (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The record reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition within the technology center.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates a pooled record across all art units where the examiner works. The allowance rate reflects historical outcomes on decided applications and describes what has occurred in the past, not what will occur on any specific application. Pooled figures obscure variation across different art units and subject matters; they describe the aggregate only and are correlational snapshots of a public record.

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 2438
905 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

84%
higher than about 75% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438
AU avg 75%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition870 decided applications

732 allowed
138 abandoned
Plus 35 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.8mo
disposed 33.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.7 mo, disposed 38.3 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 52
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
67%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
32%

Interview benefit

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

without
90%
12 pts
with
78%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 421 decided applications with an interview and 449 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Josnel Jeudy

  • What is Josnel Jeudy's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 84%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record covers one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate represent?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). Pending applications are excluded. It describes past outcomes and is not a prediction for any individual application.
  • What technology center is this examiner assigned to?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2400.
◈ 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 Josnel Jeudy 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: 905 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