LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/PETER-ANTHON PAPPAS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Peter-Anthon Pappas

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 80 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2020
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
0%vs 64% weighted peer average64 pts

Examiner Peter-Anthon Pappas has allowed 0 of 80 decided applications.

80 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (64%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2444 · 0%AU 2481 · 0%AU 2448 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Peter-Anthon Pappas maintains a public record across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400, spanning three art units: 2444, 2448, and 2481. The pooled allowance rate across these art units is 0%, meaning that across all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), no applications were allowed. This figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application under examination.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, creating a single profile that describes past dispositions without predicting outcomes on any individual case. The allowance rate shown reflects historical decided applications across all assigned art units combined. Aggregate figures describe what occurred in the examiner's record to date and do not forecast results on applications currently pending or future filings.

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.3 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 2444
77 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition77 decided applications

77 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 27.7mo
disposed 64mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
75%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
55%
ART UNIT 2481
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition2 decided applications

2 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 51mo
disposed 69.8mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.5 mo, disposed 40.2 mo.
ART UNIT 2448
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448
AU avg 56%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition1 decided applications

1 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 15mo
disposed 24.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 46.1 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 33
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Peter-Anthon Pappas

  • What is Peter-Anthon Pappas's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 0% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning three art units: 2444, 2448, and 2481.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The allowance rate describes past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application currently under examination or pending.
  • Why is the record shown across multiple art units?
    This profile aggregates the examiner's record across all assigned art units to provide a single pooled view of historical dispositions. Individual art-unit rates are shown separately on this page.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Peter-Anthon Pappas 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: 80 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