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

Examiner Jefferey F Harold

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 36 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2021
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
3%vs 71% weighted peer average68 pts

Examiner Jefferey F Harold has allowed 1 of 36 decided applications.

35 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (71%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2422 · 3%AU 2424 · 0%AU 2468 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Jefferey F Harold has an overall allowance rate of 3% across dozens of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 3 art units in Technology Center 2400. These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner Jefferey F Harold's record across 3 art units into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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.3 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 2422
32 APPS · 3% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

3%
higher than about 0% of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition32 decided applications

31 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 30.8mo
disposed 33.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.8 mo, disposed 32.3 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 18
20%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
73%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
40%

Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2424
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424
AU avg 63%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition2 decided applications

2 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 11.7mo
disposed 82.1mo
0
84mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.5 mo, disposed 42.1 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 27
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2468
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition2 decided applications

2 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 48.1mo
disposed 57.4mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.4 mo, disposed 41.5 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jefferey F Harold

  • What is Examiner Jefferey F Harold's overall allowance rate?
    3% across dozens of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 3 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Jefferey F Harold examine in?
    3 art units within Technology Center 2400, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Jefferey F Harold's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    The per-art-unit figures are shown in the breakdown on this page.
◈ 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.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 Jefferey F Harold 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: 36 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