LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Keith Tran-Danh Follansbee

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 87 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
63%vs 76% art-unit average13 pts
higher than about 16% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Keith Tran-Danh Follansbee has allowed 55 of 87 decided applications.

55 allowed
32 abandoned
Plus 62 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Keith Tran-Danh Follansbee's public record in Technology Center 2400 spans 1 art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, his allowance rate is 63%. This represents the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending applications. The allowance rate is pooled across all art units under his jurisdiction and describes his historical record rather than any prediction for a specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units into a single overall statistic. The allowance rate of 63% reflects past dispositions across all art units combined and describes the examiner's historical performance. This aggregate figure is a correlation of past outcomes and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application or indicate how any specific case will be examined.

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 2411
149 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

63%
higher than about 16% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition87 decided applications

55 allowed
32 abandoned
Plus 62 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.5mo
disposed 41.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21 mo, disposed 38.4 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 26
16%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
96%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
59%

Interview benefit

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

without
55%
+17 pts
with
72%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 44 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Keith Tran-Danh Follansbee

  • What is Keith Tran-Danh Follansbee's allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 63%, calculated across dozens of decided applications in TC 2400. This percentage represents the share of applications allowed or abandoned relative to all decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    His public record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes past dispositions across dozens of decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What is the sample size behind these figures?
    The record covers dozens of decided applications pooled across his art unit in the technology center.
◈ 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.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 Keith Tran-Danh 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: 149 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