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

Examiner Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 23 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
83%vs 83% art-unit average±0 pts
higher than about 27% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane has allowed 19 of 23 decided applications.

19 allowed
4 abandoned
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 83 percent. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The pooled record aggregates examination activity across the examiner's assigned art unit and reflects historical dispositions only.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to an examiner and presents a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes past examination outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may show different rates; the pooled figure represents the examiner's overall historical record. Applicants review pooled data to understand aggregate patterns, not to forecast results in their own matter.

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 2464
65 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 27% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition23 decided applications

19 allowed
4 abandoned
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.1mo
disposed 37.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.8 mo, disposed 35.7 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 24
5%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
93%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
13%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane

  • What is Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 83 percent across dozens of decided applications in TC 2400. This is the percentage of applications allowed among all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned), excluding pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans one art unit.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Many variables affect each individual application.
  • What does the 'decided_tier' mean?
    The decided-tier phrase ('dozens of') describes the magnitude of the examiner's pooled decided-application count and provides context for the size of the historical record.
◈ 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 Meheret Woldegebreal Kidane 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: 65 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