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

Examiner Michael K Phillips

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 542 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
86%vs 83% art-unit average+3 pts
higher than about 46% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Michael K Phillips has allowed 466 of 542 decided applications.

466 allowed
76 abandoned
Plus 36 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Michael K Phillips maintains an 86% allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The public record spans a single art unit. The allowance rate reflects the share of applications that issued as allowed or abandoned among all applications with a final disposition, excluding pending cases. This pooled figure represents past outcomes and does not characterize any individual application or predict specific prosecution results.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates decisions across all of the examiner's art units within TC 2400 into a single pooled statistic. The allowance rate describes historical outcomes on applications already decided—allowed or abandoned—and does not account for pending cases. Aggregate figures describe the past record only and are not predictions about the outcome of any particular application.

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 2464
578 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 46% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition542 decided applications

466 allowed
76 abandoned
Plus 36 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.7mo
disposed 32.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.8 mo, disposed 35.7 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 24
34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
89%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
55%

Interview benefit

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

without
71%
+22 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 368 decided applications with an interview and 174 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Michael K Phillips

  • What is Michael K Phillips's overall allowance rate?
    86% of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) across all art units in TC 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    One art unit.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The percentage of applications with final dispositions (allowed or abandoned). Pending applications are excluded. The figure reflects past outcomes, not predictions for pending or future applications.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Michael K Phillips 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: 578 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