LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/KENDALL LYNN DOLLY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kendall Lynn Dolly

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 634 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
89%vs 70% art-unit average+19 pts
higher than about 89% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Kendall Lynn Dolly has allowed 566 of 634 decided applications.

566 allowed
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kendall Lynn Dolly's public record spans Technology Center 2400, with a pooled allowance rate of 89% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed, calculated from the total of allowed and abandoned applications in the examiner's decided set. The examiner's work covers 1 art unit. The allowance rate is a historical record of outcomes on decided applications and does not characterize the examiner's approach or predict results on any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes past outcomes on decided applications—those marked allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending cases. The rate reflects historical decisions and does not predict the outcome of any particular application, nor does it reveal how the examiner evaluates specific claims, arguments, or amendments in individual cases.

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 2436
658 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 89% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition634 decided applications

566 allowed
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.2mo
disposed 29.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 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 48
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
54%

Interview benefit

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

without
79%
+18 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 356 decided applications with an interview and 278 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kendall Lynn Dolly

  • What is Kendall Lynn Dolly's overall allowance rate?
    89%, calculated from allowed and abandoned applications across hundreds of decided cases in the examiner's pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    1 art unit, operating within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The rate is a historical aggregate of past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What does the allowance rate include or exclude?
    The rate includes allowed and abandoned applications. Pending applications are excluded from the calculation.
◈ 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 Kendall Lynn Dolly 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: 658 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