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

Examiner Narciso F Victoria

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 250 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
76%vs 74% weighted peer average+2 pts

Examiner Narciso F Victoria has allowed 191 of 250 decided applications.

191 allowed
59 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (74%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2438 · 71%AU 2498 · 84%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Narciso F Victoria maintains a record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's overall allowance rate is 76%. This rate describes allowed and abandoned applications as a share of all decided (non-pending) applications in the pooled record. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 84% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's dispositions within the technology center.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units. The overall 76% allowance rate is a factual summary of past dispositions and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Variation across art units—here, a range from 71% to 84%—is normal and reflects subject-matter and case-specific differences. Pooled figures describe historical patterns, not forward-looking performance.

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.2 art units

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 2438
147 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

71%
higher than about 18% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438
AU avg 75%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2438; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition147 decided applications

105 allowed
42 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.6mo
disposed 51.8mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.7 mo, disposed 38.3 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 52
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
48%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
51%

Interview benefit

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

without
62%
+28 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 49 decided applications with an interview and 98 without.

ART UNIT 2498
103 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

84%
higher than about 59% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2498
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2498; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 28 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 27 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition103 decided applications

86 allowed
17 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 15.9mo
disposed 36.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 19 mo, disposed 36.2 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 47
60%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
84%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 90
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
48%

Interview benefit

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

without
42%
+54 pts
with
96%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 79 decided applications with an interview and 24 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Narciso F Victoria

  • What is Narciso F Victoria's overall allowance rate?
    76%, calculated as allowed and abandoned applications divided by total decided applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 84% across the examiner's art units.
  • What does this pooled record represent?
    A summary of hundreds of decided applications across multiple art units. It describes past dispositions and is not a prediction for any individual application.
◈ 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.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 Narciso F Victoria 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: 250 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