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

Examiner Vladislav Y Agureyev

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 490 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
92%vs 87% art-unit average+5 pts
higher than about 59% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471
AU avg 87%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Vladislav Y Agureyev has allowed 450 of 490 decided applications.

450 allowed
Plus 35 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Vladislav Y Agureyev maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning 1 art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 92%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The record reflects outcomes on applications already closed through allowance or abandonment.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across the examiner's art units and describes historical outcomes only. The 92% allowance rate is a past statistic across hundreds of decided applications and does not forecast the outcome of any individual application. Pooled figures mask variation by art unit and technology area. They serve as a historical reference, not as a prediction tool for any particular case.

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 2471
525 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 59% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471
AU avg 87%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition490 decided applications

450 allowed
Plus 35 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.4mo
disposed 27.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.9 mo, disposed 32.5 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 22
12%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
91%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 71
86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
13%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+4 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 96 decided applications with an interview and 394 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Vladislav Y Agureyev

  • What is Vladislav Y Agureyev's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 92% across hundreds of decided applications in the examiner's pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application. Individual outcomes vary by art unit, technology, and claim details.
  • What does the 92% figure represent?
    It is the percentage of the examiner's decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that resulted in allowance, pooled across all art units. Pending applications are excluded.
◈ 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.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 Vladislav Y Agureyev 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: 525 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