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

Examiner Helen Shibru

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 780 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
64%vs 72% art-unit average8 pts
higher than 3 of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2484
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2484; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Helen Shibru has allowed 501 of 780 decided applications.

501 allowed
279 abandoned
Plus 34 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Helen Shibru maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Her pooled allowance rate is 64% of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined, with pending applications excluded). This figure represents her overall record across hundreds of decided applications within the technology center. The allowance rate is a historical summary and does not predict the outcome of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units in TC 2400. The 64% allowance rate describes past dispositions and reflects the examiner's historical record. Aggregate figures do not predict outcomes for individual applications, nor do they indicate how any specific case will be examined or decided. The data is correlational and does not establish causation between any prosecution event and allowance.

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 2484
814 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

64%
higher than 3 of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2484
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2484; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition780 decided applications

501 allowed
279 abandoned
Plus 34 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.2mo
disposed 42.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.4 mo, disposed 34.5 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 24
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
83%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
65%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
33%

Interview benefit

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

without
65%
2 pts
with
63%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 149 decided applications with an interview and 631 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Helen Shibru

  • What is Helen Shibru's overall allowance rate?
    Her pooled allowance rate is 64%, calculated as a percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across all her art units in TC 2400.
  • How many art units does Helen Shibru cover?
    She maintains a record in one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • How large is the sample behind this allowance rate?
    The 64% allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across the technology center.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Helen Shibru 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: 814 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