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

Examiner Victor R Kostak

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 472 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
81%vs 72% art-unit average+9 pts
higher than about 55% of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Victor R Kostak has allowed 380 of 472 decided applications.

380 allowed
92 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Victor R Kostak maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate stands at 81% of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications in his record that resulted in allowance, drawn from across hundreds of decided applications. The 81% rate reflects historical outcomes on applications that have reached a final disposition—either allowed or abandoned—and does not encompass pending matters. The public record aggregates all decided applications within his assigned art unit.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines all decided applications across an examiner's assigned art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical record and serves as a statistical summary of past dispositions. The rate is not a prediction of outcome for any specific application. Individual applications may vary based on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history. Pooled figures mask variation between art units and are most useful as context for the examiner's overall practice.

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 2422
472 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

81%
higher than about 55% of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition472 decided applications

380 allowed
92 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 24.3mo
disposed 34.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.8 mo, disposed 32.3 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 18
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
55%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
33%

Interview benefit

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

without
80%
+2 pts
with
82%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 444 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Victor R Kostak

  • What is Victor R Kostak's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 81% of decided applications across his record in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Victor R Kostak's public record spans one art unit.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean?
    The 81% rate reflects the share of applications in his decided record—those allowed or abandoned—that resulted in allowance. It is a historical statistic and not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • How large is the application sample?
    The pooled record comprises 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.

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 Victor R Kostak 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: 472 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