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

Examiner Brenda H Pham

TECH CENTER 2400 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,551 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS
91%vs 85% weighted peer average+6 pts

Examiner Brenda H Pham has allowed 1,413 of 1,551 decided applications.

1,413 allowed
Plus 55 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (85%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (4 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2412 · 93%AU 2464 · 89%AU 2414 · 91%AU 2416 · 84%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Brenda H Pham has an overall allowance rate of 91% across more than a thousand decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 4 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across these art units the allowance rate ranges from 84% to 93%. These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner Brenda H Pham's record across 4 art units into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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.4 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 2412
908 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

93%
higher than about 62% of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2412
AU avg 89%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 21 examiners with published rates in art unit 2412; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition853 decided applications

794 allowed
Plus 55 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.5mo
disposed 27mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.8 mo, disposed 31.5 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 21
23%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
66%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
68%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
36%

Interview benefit

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

without
93%
+2 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 129 decided applications with an interview and 724 without.

ART UNIT 2464
398 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 65% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition398 decided applications

353 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 28.2mo
disposed 39.6mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.8 mo, disposed 35.7 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 24
33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
46%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
29%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
89%
3 pts
with
86%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 341 without.

ART UNIT 2414
215 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 61% of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2414
AU avg 85%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2414; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 25 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 23 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition215 decided applications

195 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.2mo
disposed 33.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.9 mo, disposed 30.9 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
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
56%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
50%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
48%

Interview benefit

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

without
89%
+11 pts
with
100%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 187 without.

ART UNIT 2416
85 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

84%
higher than about 83% 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.

Disposition85 decided applications

71 allowed
14 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 38.2mo
disposed 56.6mo
0
60mo
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
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
0%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 78
0%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Brenda H Pham

  • What is Examiner Brenda H Pham's overall allowance rate?
    91% across more than a thousand decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 4 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Brenda H Pham examine in?
    4 art units within Technology Center 2400, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Brenda H Pham's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Across the examiner's substantial art units the allowance rate ranges from 84% to 93% in public USPTO data.
◈ 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.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 Brenda H Pham 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: 1,606 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