LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/RICHARD W CRUZ-FRANQUI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Richard W Cruz-Franqui

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 218 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
78%vs 73% art-unit average+5 pts
higher than about 52% 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.

Examiner Richard W Cruz-Franqui has allowed 169 of 218 decided applications.

169 allowed
49 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Richard W Cruz-Franqui maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate is 78%, measured across hundreds of decided applications—that is, applications that were either allowed or abandoned. This rate reflects the share of his decided caseload that resulted in allowance, excluding pending matters. The 78% figure aggregates all decided applications within his assigned art unit and represents his historical record during the period covered by public data.

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's pooled record aggregates applications across all assigned art units. The allowance rate shown—78%—is a historical summary of past decisions on applications that reached final disposition (allowed or abandoned), and does not include applications still pending. Pooled figures describe past performance across different art units and do not constitute a prediction about any specific application's outcome. Individual art-unit rates may differ from the pooled figure.

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 2498
218 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

78%
higher than about 52% 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.

Disposition218 decided applications

169 allowed
49 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.9mo
disposed 37mo
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
62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
99%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 90
98%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
63%

Interview benefit

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

without
54%
+35 pts
with
89%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 149 decided applications with an interview and 69 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Richard W Cruz-Franqui

  • What is Richard W Cruz-Franqui's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 78% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the percentage of his decided applications (allowed or abandoned) that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans one art unit in TC 2400.
  • What does the pooled record mean?
    The pooled record aggregates all decided applications across all assigned art units. It reflects historical performance and is not a prediction of outcome 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Richard W Cruz-Franqui 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: 218 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