LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/WILLIAM A CORUM JR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner William A Corum Jr

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 669 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
82%vs 64% art-unit average+18 pts
higher than about 65% 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 William A Corum Jr has allowed 547 of 669 decided applications.

547 allowed
122 abandoned
Plus 23 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

William A Corum Jr's public record in Technology Center 2400 spans one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 82%, meaning that of applications receiving final decisions (allowed or abandoned), 82% were allowed. This rate is calculated from the pool of all decided applications across his art-unit assignments and reflects the proportion of those applications that resulted in allowance. The record covers applications in the assigned technology center and does not include pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art-unit assignments. The 82% allowance rate describes what occurred in past applications and is a historical aggregate, not a prediction about any specific application. Pooled figures smooth variation across different art units and subject areas within the technology center. When reviewing an examiner's record, the aggregate rate provides context for the examiner's historical decisions but does not determine the outcome of any individual 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 2433
692 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 65% 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.

Disposition669 decided applications

547 allowed
122 abandoned
Plus 23 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.8mo
disposed 29.5mo
0
36mo
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
25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
77%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
63%
+28 pts
with
91%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 448 decided applications with an interview and 221 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner William A Corum Jr

  • What is William A Corum Jr's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 82% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the share of applications that were allowed out of all applications receiving final decisions (allowed or abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    William A Corum Jr's public record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The 82% rate is a historical aggregate of past decided applications and is not a prediction about any specific application. Individual outcomes depend on the merits of each application and the claims presented.
◈ 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.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 William A Corum Jr 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: 692 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