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

Examiner Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 12 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
33%vs 70% art-unit average37 pts
higher than about 6% 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 Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu has allowed 4 of 12 decided applications.

4 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 68 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across a single art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate stands at 33% across a small number of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications that have been allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the examiner's record. The 33% rate reflects outcomes on applications that have reached a final disposition; pending applications are excluded from this calculation.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units into a single allowance-rate figure. The 33% rate describes the examiner's historical record and does not function as a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures smooth variation across different art units and subject areas within TC 2400. Individual application outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution specifics unique to each case.

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
80 APPS · 33% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

33%
higher than about 6% 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.

Disposition12 decided applications

4 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 68 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 25.8mo
disposed 32.5mo
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
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
61%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu

  • What is Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 33% across a small number of decided applications. This is the share of allowed applications among all applications that have reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me?
    The pooled rate aggregates the examiner's historical record across all art units and is descriptive of past outcomes only. It is not a forecast for any individual application and does not account for claim-specific factors, prior art, or prosecution strategy.
  • Does this examiner cover multiple technology areas?
    The examiner's record is maintained within TC 2400. The single art unit pools applications within this technology center's subject scope.
◈ 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.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 Lucia Gheorghe Gradinariu 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: 80 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