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

Examiner Kodzovi Acolatse

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 1,019 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
85%vs 70% art-unit average+15 pts
higher than about 74% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Kodzovi Acolatse has allowed 866 of 1,019 decided applications.

866 allowed
153 abandoned
Plus 87 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Kodzovi Acolatse maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across more than a thousand decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 85%. This figure represents the share of applications in the decided pool (allowed and abandoned combined) that issued as allowed. The rate is derived from the examiner's complete pooled record and describes the historical distribution of outcomes without indicating the result of any future application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across all assigned art units into a single set of statistics. The allowance rate shown here reflects past outcomes across the entire portfolio and serves as context for understanding the examiner's historical decision pattern. Pooled figures describe what occurred in prior applications and are not predictions for any individual case. Individual art-unit records, where available separately, may show variation from the pooled result.

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 2478
1,106 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 74% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition1,019 decided applications

866 allowed
153 abandoned
Plus 87 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.2mo
disposed 31mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 42.7 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
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
62%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
32%

Interview benefit

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

without
76%
+18 pts
with
94%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 523 decided applications with an interview and 496 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kodzovi Acolatse

  • What is Examiner Acolatse's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 85% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the proportion of decided applications that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's public record spans one art unit. The pooled statistics shown here aggregate that unit's work together.
  • Does the allowance rate predict outcomes in my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Each application is examined individually.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    This examiner works in Technology Center 2400. Specific art-unit assignments determine the precise technical areas within that center.
◈ 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.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 Kodzovi Acolatse 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: 1,106 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