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

Examiner Brandon S Hoffman

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,315 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
91%vs 65% weighted peer average+26 pts

Examiner Brandon S Hoffman has allowed 1,202 of 1,315 decided applications.

1,202 allowed
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (65%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2433 · 92%AU 2436 · 89%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Brandon S Hoffman maintains an allowance rate of 91% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His public record spans 2 art units, with allowance rates that range from 89% to 92% across these art units. The allowance rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided applications in his pooled record, excluding pending matters. This statistic describes his historical record and does not indicate the outcome of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units within TC 2400. The overall allowance rate of 91% represents the combined history of decided applications across all those units. Aggregate figures describe past record only and are not predictions for any particular filing. Individual art units may show different rates; separate data on per-unit records is available elsewhere on this page.

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.2 art units

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
1,207 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 97% 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.

Disposition1,169 decided applications

1,072 allowed
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.2mo
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
14%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
59%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
46%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
11%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+7 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 160 decided applications with an interview and 1,009 without.

ART UNIT 2436
146 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 84% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition146 decided applications

130 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 36.3mo
disposed 57.9mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 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 48
17%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
50%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
58%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
8%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Brandon S Hoffman

  • What is Brandon S Hoffman's overall allowance rate?
    91% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    2 art units within TC 2400.
  • Do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 89% to 92% across the art units in his pooled record.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This statistic describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application outcome.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Brandon S Hoffman 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: 1,353 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