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

Examiner John W Miller

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 39 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
49%vs 72% art-unit average23 pts
higher than about 9% 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.

Examiner John W Miller has allowed 19 of 39 decided applications.

19 allowed
20 abandoned
Plus 11 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

John W Miller maintains a 49% allowance rate across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This record spans a single art unit. The allowance rate represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned), excluding pending matters. The 49% figure is the pooled result across all art units in which the examiner has issued decisions and reflects only completed prosecution outcomes in the public record.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all art units in which the examiner has decided applications. The allowance rate and art-unit count describe the examiner's past record and do not constitute a prediction about the outcome of any specific application. Aggregate statistics reflect correlations in historical data, not deterministic factors. Individual applications may differ materially from the pooled average based on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history.

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 2422
50 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

49%
higher than about 9% 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.

Disposition39 decided applications

19 allowed
20 abandoned
Plus 11 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 14.6mo
disposed 31.6mo
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
12%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
66%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
32%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner John W Miller

  • What is John W Miller's overall allowance rate?
    49% of his decided applications were allowed. This reflects the share of allowed applications among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the public record, excluding pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    One art unit. The record is pooled across this single unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate tell me about a specific application?
    The rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution strategy.
  • How large is the sample size?
    The allowance rate is based on dozens of decided applications pooled across all art units.
◈ 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 W Miller 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: 50 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