LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HOWARD D BROWN JR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Howard D Brown Jr

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 1,007 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
91%vs 82% art-unit average+9 pts
higher than about 83% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 25 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 24 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Howard D Brown Jr has allowed 921 of 1,007 decided applications.

921 allowed
Plus 39 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Howard D Brown Jr maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across more than a thousand decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 91%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that issued or were abandoned, excluding pending matters. The allowance rate is calculated from the pool of decided applications and reflects the historical record; it does not predict outcomes on any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across one art unit in TC 2400. Aggregate statistics describe the past distribution of decisions and are not predictions about any specific application. An allowance rate reflects historical proportions of allowed and abandoned applications among those fully decided, but does not indicate the likelihood of allowance for any particular case.

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 2488
1,046 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 83% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 25 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 24 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition1,007 decided applications

921 allowed
Plus 39 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.9mo
disposed 25.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.1 mo, disposed 31.5 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
14%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
57%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
64%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
19%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+6 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 144 decided applications with an interview and 863 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Howard D Brown Jr

  • What is Howard D Brown Jr's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 91%, calculated from the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record covers one art unit (2488) within Technology Center 2400.
  • How large is the sample of decided applications?
    The pooled record spans more than a thousand decided applications.
  • Does the allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Howard D Brown Jr 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: 1,046 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