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

Examiner Shewaye Gelagay

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 294 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
70%vs 65% weighted peer average+5 pts

Examiner Shewaye Gelagay has allowed 207 of 294 decided applications.

207 allowed
87 abandoned
Plus 17 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (65%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2437 · 71%AU 2436 · 67%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Shewaye Gelagay's public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400, across hundreds of decided applications. The overall allowance rate is 70%, measured as a share of applications that were allowed or abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 67% to 71% across these art units. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, combining applications from different subject-matter areas into a single statistic. The overall allowance rate of 70% describes the examiner's past decided applications in aggregate. This figure is historical and does not predict the outcome of any particular application. Individual art units may have distinct allowance rates; the range shown reflects variation among those units.

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 2437
267 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

71%
higher than about 48% of the 42 examiners with published rates in art unit 2437
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 42 examiners with published rates in art unit 2437; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 44 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 42 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition267 decided applications

189 allowed
78 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.2mo
disposed 61.9mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.8 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 51
55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
28%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
54%

Interview benefit

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

without
61%
+29 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 91 decided applications with an interview and 176 without.

ART UNIT 2436
44 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

67%
higher than about 32% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition27 decided applications

18 allowed
9 abandoned
Plus 17 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.4mo
disposed 27.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 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 48
44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
53%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
41%

Based on 44 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shewaye Gelagay

  • What is Examiner Gelagay's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 70% of decided applications (allowed and abandoned), pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Gelagay's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Do allowance rates vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 67% to 71% across the examiner's art units. This pooled record aggregates those art units and does not attribute any specific rate to any specific unit.
  • How large is the sample of decided applications?
    The pooled record covers hundreds of decided applications.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Shewaye Gelagay 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: 311 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