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

Examiner Kokou R Detse

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 186 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
77%vs 76% art-unit average+1 pt
higher than about 26% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Kokou R Detse has allowed 144 of 186 decided applications.

144 allowed
42 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kokou R Detse maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across a single art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 77%, measured across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications in the examiner's record that were allowed, within the subset of all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications. The record reflects outcomes on concluded matters and does not encompass pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across all art units under this examiner's jurisdiction. The allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction about any specific application. Aggregate statistics describe past performance only. Individual applications may proceed differently based on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history.

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 2463
186 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

77%
higher than about 26% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2463; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition186 decided applications

144 allowed
42 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.3mo
disposed 35.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.2 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 21
29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
91%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
36%

Interview benefit

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

without
71%
+18 pts
with
89%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 116 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kokou R Detse

  • What is Kokou R Detse's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 77% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans one art unit.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) that were allowed. Pending applications are excluded from this calculation.
  • Is this rate a prediction for my application?
    No. This pooled figure describes past outcomes only and is not a prediction 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Kokou R Detse 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: 186 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