LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/OLUWATOSIN M GIDADO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Oluwatosin M Gidado

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 270 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
73%vs 60% art-unit average+13 pts
higher than about 56% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445
AU avg 60%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Oluwatosin M Gidado has allowed 196 of 270 decided applications.

196 allowed
74 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Oluwatosin M Gidado maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 73% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed, measured against the total of allowed and abandoned applications. The record covers a single art unit, pooling all decided cases to produce an aggregate figure that describes the examiner's historical disposition pattern in this technology center.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes from all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction, producing a single allowance percentage that reflects past decisions. This aggregate figure describes historical outcomes only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Applicants review pooled rates to understand an examiner's general pattern, while recognizing that individual applications may differ based on claim scope, prior art, and examination 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 2445
270 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

73%
higher than about 56% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445
AU avg 60%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition270 decided applications

196 allowed
74 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.9mo
disposed 42.2mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.6 mo, disposed 47.1 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 40
32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
98%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
43%

Interview benefit

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

without
59%
+29 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 129 decided applications with an interview and 141 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Oluwatosin M Gidado

  • What is this examiner's allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 73%, based on all allowed and abandoned applications across the examiner's record in TC 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record covers one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed. It describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • How large is the sample of applications behind this record?
    The figures are based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across all of the examiner's art units.
◈ 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.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 Oluwatosin M Gidado 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: 270 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