LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Judy Bazna

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 29 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
72%vs 79% art-unit average7 pts
higher than about 14% of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2495
AU avg 79%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2495; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 22 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 21 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Judy Bazna has allowed 21 of 29 decided applications.

21 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 25 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Judy Bazna maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning 1 art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, her allowance rate is 72%. This rate reflects the share of applications in her decided pool that received allowance; pending applications are excluded from this calculation. The allowance rate represents her historical record and is not a prediction of outcomes in any specific case. The pooled figure aggregates her work across all art units in which she has decided applications.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units into a single historical snapshot. The allowance rate shown describes past decisions across all those units combined and reflects what share of decided applications were allowed. This aggregate figure characterizes the examiner's historical record only and does not predict the outcome of any individual application or indicate how any particular case will be examined.

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 2495
54 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

72%
higher than about 14% of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2495
AU avg 79%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2495; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 22 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 21 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition29 decided applications

21 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 25 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.7mo
disposed 38.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.3 mo, disposed 35.9 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 39
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
92%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
98%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
31%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Judy Bazna

  • What is Judy Bazna's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 72% across dozens of decided applications in her pooled record.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate represent?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed. Pending applications are not included. This is a historical figure and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • Can I use this record to predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record only and is not a prediction of the outcome in any particular case.
◈ 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.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 Judy Bazna 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: 54 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