LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/PAUL J SKWIERAWSKI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Paul J Skwierawski

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 74 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
84%vs 68% weighted peer average+16 pts

Examiner Paul J Skwierawski has allowed 62 of 74 decided applications.

62 allowed
12 abandoned
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (68%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2439 · 85%AU 2498 · 67%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Paul J Skwierawski maintains a public record across 2 art units within Technology Center 2400. His pooled allowance rate is 84% across dozens of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending cases. The record spans multiple art units, and the aggregate allowance rate reflects his overall activity across these areas. Individual art-unit records are available separately and may differ from this pooled figure.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's activity across multiple art units into a single allowance rate. The 84% figure describes past dispositions of decided applications and does not predict outcomes in any specific case. Pooled rates obscure potential variation between individual art units; detailed per-unit records are available separately. Aggregate statistics reflect historical patterns only and carry no predictive force for future applications.

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 2439
92 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 85% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition68 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 25.2mo
disposed 41.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.9 mo, disposed 44.5 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 43
31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
92%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 94
89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
57%
ART UNIT 2498
6 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

67%
higher than about 30% 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.

Disposition6 decided applications

4 allowed
2 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 28.9mo
disposed 33.2mo
0
36mo
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
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 90
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Based on 6 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Paul J Skwierawski

  • What is Paul J Skwierawski's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 84% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned), excluding pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans 2 art units within TC 2400. This pooled data aggregates activity across both units; individual art-unit records are maintained separately.
  • What does a pooled allowance rate tell me?
    It describes the historical share of allowed outcomes across all decided applications in the record period. It is a description of past dispositions, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Paul J Skwierawski 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: 98 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