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

Examiner David N Werner

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 722 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
73%vs 73% weighted peer average±0 pts

Examiner David N Werner has allowed 526 of 722 decided applications.

526 allowed
196 abandoned
Plus 56 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (73%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2487 · 76%AU 2483 · 36%

What the data says.reading this examiner

David N Werner maintains a pooled allowance rate of 73% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 2 art units, where the allowance rate ranges from 36% to 76% across these art units. The 73% figure represents the percentage of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across all art units in his record. This aggregate rate describes his historical record and does not indicate the outcome of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates David N Werner's decided applications across multiple art units within TC 2400. The overall allowance rate of 73% is a historical summary across all art units combined and reflects past dispositions only. Aggregate figures describe what has occurred in the examiner's record and are not predictions of future application outcomes. Individual art units may show different rates; those details are presented separately.

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 2487
723 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than 7 of the 19 examiners with published rates in art unit 2487
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 19 examiners with published rates in art unit 2487; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 20 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 19 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition667 decided applications

506 allowed
161 abandoned
Plus 56 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.4mo
disposed 35.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 18.7 mo, disposed 34.3 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 25
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
81%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
60%

Interview benefit

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

without
72%
+11 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 228 decided applications with an interview and 439 without.

ART UNIT 2483
55 APPS · 36% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

36%
higher than about 14% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483
AU avg 57%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition55 decided applications

20 allowed
35 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 44.5mo
disposed 68.4mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.9 mo, disposed 42.2 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 22
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
80%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
60%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David N Werner

  • What is David N Werner's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 73% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400, measured as a share of allowed and abandoned applications.
  • How many art units does David N Werner cover?
    His public record spans 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 36% to 76% across these art units.
  • What does the pooled rate tell me about my application?
    The pooled allowance rate is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's 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.

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 David N Werner 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: 778 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