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

Examiner John A Follansbee

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 45 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
16%vs 64% weighted peer average48 pts

Examiner John A Follansbee has allowed 7 of 45 decided applications.

7 allowed
38 abandoned
Plus 19 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (64%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2444 · 41%AU 2451 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

John A Follansbee has a pooled allowance rate of 16% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 0% to 41% across these art units, reflecting variation in the distribution of decided applications and their outcomes within the technology center. This pooled figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned), excluding pending matters.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing a single allowance-rate figure that describes historical outcomes in aggregate. This overall rate is a factual summary of past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range across individual art units indicates variation within the examiner's practice; the pooled rate does not apply uniformly to every art unit or 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.2 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 2444
36 APPS · 41% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

41%
higher than about 16% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition17 decided applications

7 allowed
10 abandoned
Plus 19 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.3mo
disposed 35.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
82%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
44%

Based on 36 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2451
28 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2451; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition28 decided applications

28 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.6mo
disposed 55.6mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.8 mo, disposed 43.5 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 43
43%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
74%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
70%

Based on 28 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner John A Follansbee

  • What is John A Follansbee's overall allowance rate?
    16% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the share of applications allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 0% to 41% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in case distribution and outcomes within the technology center.
  • Is the 16% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the historical record across decided applications 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 John A Follansbee 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: 64 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