LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/KEVIN K MCINNISH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kevin K Mcinnish

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 267 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
54%vs 57% art-unit average3 pts
higher than about 45% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483
AU avg 57%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Kevin K Mcinnish has allowed 143 of 267 decided applications.

143 allowed
124 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kevin K Mcinnish maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 54%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed, calculated as a proportion of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), and excludes pending applications. The allowance rate reflects the examiner's historical record and does not indicate outcomes on any particular application.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates decisions across one art unit within TC 2400. The pooled allowance rate of 54% describes the examiner's past performance across all decided applications in that unit and is historical in nature. Aggregate statistics reflect accumulated decisions over time and are not predictive of any individual application's disposition. Understanding pooled rates requires recognizing they mask variation within art units and do not forecast specific outcomes.

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 2483
267 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

54%
higher than about 45% of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483
AU avg 57%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 29 examiners with published rates in art unit 2483; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 30 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 29 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition267 decided applications

143 allowed
124 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 24.9mo
disposed 40.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.9 mo, disposed 42.2 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 22
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
51%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
81%

Interview benefit

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

without
46%
+21 pts
with
67%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 98 decided applications with an interview and 169 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kevin K Mcinnish

  • What is Kevin K Mcinnish's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 54% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This is the percentage of applications allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications, and does not include pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Kevin K Mcinnish's public record spans one art unit within TC 2400. The pooled figures on this page aggregate all decisions across that single art unit.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical statistic describing past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual applications are examined on their own merits under applicable law.
  • What does 'decided applications' mean?
    Decided applications include both allowed and abandoned applications. The allowance rate is calculated only from decided applications; pending applications are excluded from this percentage.
◈ 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 Kevin K Mcinnish 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: 267 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