LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/NICHOLAS A JENSEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Nicholas A Jensen

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 153 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
56%vs 65% weighted peer average9 pts

Examiner Nicholas A Jensen has allowed 85 of 153 decided applications.

85 allowed
68 abandoned
Plus 30 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (65%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2468 · 56%AU 2472 · 100%AU 2449 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Nicholas A Jensen maintains a pooled allowance rate of 56% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans three art units: 2449, 2468, and 2472. The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 100% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate of allowed and abandoned applications across all three art units and does not predict outcomes on any particular application or art unit.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical disposition across the combined set of decided applications and does not indicate the rate within any single art unit. Pooled figures are descriptive of the past record only and are not predictive of any specific application's outcome.

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.3 art units

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 2468
147 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

56%
higher than about 30% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition147 decided applications

83 allowed
64 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 35.6mo
disposed 57mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.4 mo, disposed 41.5 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 21
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
34%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
43%

Interview benefit

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

without
47%
+31 pts
with
78%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 102 without.

ART UNIT 2472
32 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than about 76% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2472
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2472; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 47 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 45 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition2 decided applications

2 allowed
Plus 30 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.8mo
0
24mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.3 mo, disposed 35.1 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 22
12%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
73%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
38%

Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2449
4 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2449
AU avg 55%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2449; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition4 decided applications

4 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 36.4mo
disposed 43.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.9 mo, disposed 40.3 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Nicholas A Jensen

  • What is Nicholas A Jensen's overall allowance rate?
    56% across hundreds of decided applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2449, 2468, and 2472, all within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 100% across the examiner's art units. Detailed rates for individual art units appear in the per-art-unit section of this page.
  • What does a 56% pooled rate mean for my application?
    The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Nicholas A Jensen 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: 183 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