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

Examiner Jill D Sechser

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 269 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
59%vs 57% art-unit average+2 pts
higher than about 48% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483
AU avg 57%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Jill D Sechser has allowed 160 of 269 decided applications.

160 allowed
109 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jill D Sechser maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning a single art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 59%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed, measured as a share of all decided matters (allowed and abandoned applications combined). The record reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition; pending applications are excluded from this calculation.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units. The allowance rate of 59% describes the historical rate of allowances in decided cases and is a statement of past record only. Aggregate statistics do not account for variation in application complexity, prior art, or claim scope, and they are not predictions about the outcome of any individual application.

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 2483
269 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

59%
higher than about 48% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483
AU avg 57%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition269 decided applications

160 allowed
109 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.9mo
disposed 40.8mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.9 mo, disposed 42.2 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 22
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
83%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
50%
+31 pts
with
81%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 80 decided applications with an interview and 189 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jill D Sechser

  • What is Jill D Sechser's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 59%, based on decided applications across the examiner's assigned art units. This is the percentage of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record covers 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • How large is the data set underlying this allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications, pooled across all of the examiner's art units.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual results vary based on claim scope, prior art, application facts, and examiner actions.
◈ 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.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 Jill D Sechser 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: 269 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