LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/DONALD L MILLS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Donald L Mills

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 965 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
85%vs 76% weighted peer average+9 pts

Examiner Donald L Mills has allowed 821 of 965 decided applications.

821 allowed
144 abandoned
Plus 49 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (76%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2462 · 85%AU 2416 · 77%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Donald L Mills maintains an 85% allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His public record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate represents the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) in the examiner's pooled record. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 77% to 85%. This range reflects variation in the composition and outcomes of applications across different art units within the technology center. The figures described are historical and do not predict outcomes in any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units within Technology Center 2400. The overall allowance rate reflects past decisions across all the examiner's art units combined. When multiple art units are represented, rates may vary by unit due to differences in application type, complexity, and other factors. The aggregate figure is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art-unit records appear separately 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 2462
970 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 74% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition921 decided applications

787 allowed
134 abandoned
Plus 49 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21mo
disposed 34.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 38.3 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 24
26%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
71%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
68%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
41%

Interview benefit

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

without
83%
+12 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 183 decided applications with an interview and 738 without.

ART UNIT 2416
44 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

77%
higher than about 71% 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.

Disposition44 decided applications

34 allowed
10 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 38.7mo
disposed 58.3mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Donald L Mills

  • What is Donald L Mills's overall allowance rate?
    85% across decided applications in Technology Center 2400, meaning 85% of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) have resulted in allowance.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 77% to 85% across the examiner's art units.
  • What does this historical record mean for my application?
    These figures describe past decisions and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Each application is examined on its own merits.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Donald L Mills 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: 1,014 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