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

Examiner Jeremiah L Avery

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 990 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
88%vs 73% art-unit average+15 pts
higher than about 61% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Jeremiah L Avery has allowed 869 of 990 decided applications.

869 allowed
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jeremiah L Avery maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 88%, representing the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record. This figure reflects historical disposition data and does not predict outcomes for any specific application. The record aggregates decisions across the art units in which the examiner has issued final actions.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's assigned art units. The allowance rate describes past decisions and is correlational data only—it is not a prediction of any individual application's outcome. Aggregate figures mask variation that may exist within specific art units or technology areas. For art-unit-specific analysis, refer to the dedicated per-art-unit section of this profile.

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 2431
1,014 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 61% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition990 decided applications

869 allowed
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.6mo
disposed 32.5mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 35.1 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 40
41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
76%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
57%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
50%

Interview benefit

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

without
84%
+10 pts
with
94%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 410 decided applications with an interview and 580 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jeremiah L Avery

  • What is Jeremiah L Avery's allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 88% across hundreds of decided applications pooled from all art units. This represents the share of allowed applications among all decided (allowed and abandoned) cases and is a historical figure, not a prediction for any pending application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of applications that received a final allowance among all applications that have been decided (allowed or abandoned). Pending applications are excluded from this calculation. It describes past outcomes, not future ones.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is an aggregate of past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual results depend on claim scope, prior art, examiner analysis, and applicant response.
◈ 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.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 Jeremiah L Avery 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