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

Examiner Wilfred Thomas

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 284 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
77%vs 58% art-unit average+19 pts
higher than about 69% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Wilfred Thomas has allowed 218 of 284 decided applications.

218 allowed
66 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Wilfred Thomas maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 77%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The allowance rate is derived from the examiner's pooled record and reflects historical outcomes only.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction. The allowance rate stated here describes past decided applications and is a historical aggregate—it is not a prediction of the outcome in any specific case. Allowance rates vary by application, art unit, and prosecution history. This figure provides context about the examiner's overall record but does not forecast results for individual matters.

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 2416
330 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

77%
higher than about 69% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition284 decided applications

218 allowed
66 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.6mo
disposed 40.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 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 32
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
89%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 78
99%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
39%

Interview benefit

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

without
57%
+31 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 185 decided applications with an interview and 99 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Wilfred Thomas

  • What is Wilfred Thomas's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 77%, meaning that 77% of the examiner's decided applications were allowed (the remainder were abandoned). This is a pooled figure across all art units and reflects historical outcomes only.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Wilfred Thomas is assigned to one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate tell me?
    The allowance rate describes the share of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed in the examiner's past record. It is historical data and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How large is the sample size?
    The allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Wilfred Thomas 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: 330 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