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

Examiner Mudasiru K Olaegbe

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 100 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
76%vs 79% art-unit average3 pts
higher than about 19% 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 Mudasiru K Olaegbe has allowed 76 of 100 decided applications.

76 allowed
24 abandoned
Plus 45 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mudasiru K Olaegbe maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across 1 art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate stands at 76% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the percentage of applications in the examiner's record that were allowed, measured against all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The record aggregates outcomes across the examiner's assigned art units and represents historical dispositions rather than a prediction of any specific application's outcome.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate that reflects past decisions. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and does not predict outcomes in any individual case. The rate shown is calculated from all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) in the examiner's portfolio and serves as one data point among many relevant to understanding an examiner's public record.

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
145 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 19% 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.

Disposition100 decided applications

76 allowed
24 abandoned
Plus 45 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.5mo
disposed 38.6mo
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
30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
67%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
59%

Interview benefit

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

without
69%
+14 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 52 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mudasiru K Olaegbe

  • What is Mudasiru K Olaegbe's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 76%, measured across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This record spans 1 art unit, with data pooled to show the examiner's aggregate profile.
  • Does the allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • What technology does TC 2400 cover?
    This examiner's record is in Technology Center 2400. Refer to the technology center descriptor for subject matter 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Mudasiru K Olaegbe 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: 145 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