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

Examiner Christopher Kingsbury Glover

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 251 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
69%vs 66% art-unit average+3 pts
higher than about 41% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Christopher Kingsbury Glover has allowed 172 of 251 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Christopher Kingsbury Glover maintains a record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate is 69%, measured across hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned). This rate reflects the share of applications in his public record that issued as allowed or were abandoned, excluding pending matters. The record aggregates all work within TC 2400 and represents historical dispositions only.

How to read these numbers.

This profile pools all decisions across the examiner's assigned art units within TC 2400. The allowance rate is an aggregate figure describing past outcomes on decided applications and is not predictive of any particular case. Pooled statistics smooth variation across different art units and technologies; they describe the examiner's overall record without forecasting the result of any individual application.

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 2485
273 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

69%
higher than about 41% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition251 decided applications

172 allowed
79 abandoned
Plus 22 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 15.1mo
disposed 28.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 27.1 mo, disposed 40.3 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 23
16%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
96%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
66%

Interview benefit

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

without
59%
+21 pts
with
80%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 112 decided applications with an interview and 139 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher Kingsbury Glover

  • What is Christopher Kingsbury Glover's allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 69% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This is the percentage of allowed and abandoned applications in his public record, excluding pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Glover's public record spans one art unit within TC 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, and examination specifics.
◈ 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 Christopher Kingsbury Glover 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: 273 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