LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/JUSTIN E SHEPARD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Justin E Shepard

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 649 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
72%vs 63% art-unit average+9 pts
higher than about 50% 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.

Examiner Justin E Shepard has allowed 469 of 649 decided applications.

469 allowed
180 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Justin E Shepard maintains a public record across one art unit in Technology Center 2400. Over hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate stands at 72%, meaning that of applications that received a final disposition (allowed or abandoned), 72% were allowed. This figure reflects the pooled record across all art units under this examiner's jurisdiction and is based on applications with final decisions, excluding those pending at the time of measurement.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across all art units assigned to an examiner and reflects historical dispositions. The allowance rate describes what portion of decided applications were allowed in the past and does not constitute a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Aggregate figures mask variation in individual art units and application-specific circumstances. This pooled view provides context on the examiner's overall record; detailed analysis by art unit appears elsewhere on this page.

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 2424
649 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

72%
higher than about 50% 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.

Disposition649 decided applications

469 allowed
180 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.5mo
disposed 41mo
0
48mo
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
28%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
59%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
28%

Interview benefit

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

without
69%
+13 pts
with
82%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 165 decided applications with an interview and 484 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Justin E Shepard

  • What is Justin E Shepard's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 72% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units. This reflects the share of applications that received final allowance among all applications with a final disposition (allowed or abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict outcomes for my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical dispositions and does not predict any individual application's outcome. Actual results depend on application-specific facts, claim scope, prior art, and examination.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Justin E Shepard 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: 649 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