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

Examiner Herman A Belcher

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 181 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
54%vs 56% art-unit average2 pts
higher than about 32% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448
AU avg 56%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Herman A Belcher has allowed 97 of 181 decided applications.

97 allowed
84 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Herman A Belcher maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning 1 art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate is 54%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's pooled record. The allowance rate is calculated from decided applications only; pending applications are excluded. This pooled record aggregates outcomes across the examiner's art-unit assignments and reflects historical disposition patterns.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates decided applications across all art units assigned to an examiner. The allowance rate shown describes past outcomes on applications that reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned). This aggregate figure does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units may have different allowance rates; those details appear separately. Pooled data provides a broad overview of the examiner's historical record but does not account for variation across different areas of technology or application characteristics.

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 2448
181 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

54%
higher than about 32% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448
AU avg 56%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition181 decided applications

97 allowed
84 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 27.5mo
disposed 64mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 46.1 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 33
40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
52%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
49%

Interview benefit

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

without
36%
+45 pts
with
81%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 111 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Herman A Belcher

  • What is Herman A Belcher's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 54% across hundreds of decided applications in TC 2400. This reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed among all applications that reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner is assigned to 1 art unit. This pooled record aggregates the examiner's outcomes across that art-unit assignment.
  • Does the allowance rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical summary of past decided applications. It does not predict the outcome of any specific application, which depends on the merits, claims, prior art, and prosecution conduct unique to that case.
  • What technology areas does this examiner handle?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2400. Subject-matter details and art-unit breakdowns appear in other sections of this profile.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Herman A Belcher 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: 181 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