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

Examiner Thomas C Lauzon

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 75 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2013
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
53%vs 64% art-unit average11 pts
higher than about 26% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Thomas C Lauzon has allowed 40 of 75 decided applications.

40 allowed
35 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Thomas C Lauzon maintains a pooled allowance rate of 53% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This rate represents the share of allowed applications among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned combined). The examiner's public record spans a single art unit. The 53% figure reflects the examiner's historical record of allowances versus abandonments in decided applications and does not serve as a prediction for any pending or future matter.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across all of an examiner's art units into a single historical snapshot. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions on applications that reached final resolution—allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending cases. This aggregate figure characterizes the examiner's decided caseload and is not a forecast of outcomes in any individual application or art unit.

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 2433
75 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

53%
higher than about 26% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition75 decided applications

40 allowed
35 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 35.5mo
disposed 55.2mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.2 mo, disposed 41.6 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
41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
39%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
39%

Interview benefit

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

without
44%
+39 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 18 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Thomas C Lauzon

  • What is Thomas C Lauzon's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 53% across dozens of decided applications. This is the percentage of allowed applications among all cases that were decided (allowed or abandoned), excluding pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Thomas C Lauzon's public record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. The pooled record aggregates all outcomes within that art unit.
  • Does the 53% allowance rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The 53% rate describes the examiner's past record on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific pending or future application's outcome.
  • What does 'dozens of decided applications' mean?
    It indicates the size of the examiner's pooled caseload on which the 53% allowance rate is based. Specific application counts appear in the page's data tables, not in this narrative.
◈ 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.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 Thomas C Lauzon 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: 75 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