LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/OMAR S PARRA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Omar S Parra

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 741 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
76%vs 61% art-unit average+15 pts
higher than about 54% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 29 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 28 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Omar S Parra has allowed 564 of 741 decided applications.

564 allowed
177 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Omar S Parra maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 76%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in his pooled record. The allowance rate is computed from past decisions and does not forecast the outcome of any individual application. Each application is examined on its own merits according to the applicable statutes and USPTO guidelines.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's decisions across all art units within TC 2400. The allowance rate describes historical outcomes across many applications and reflects past patterns only. Aggregate figures do not predict results in any specific pending application. Individual applications may vary based on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors. The pooled statistic provides context for the examiner's overall record but is not a basis for predicting any single prosecution 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.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 2421
784 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 54% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 29 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 28 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition741 decided applications

564 allowed
177 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.7mo
disposed 33.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 mo, disposed 40.3 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 23
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
18%

Interview benefit

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

without
75%
+6 pts
with
81%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 156 decided applications with an interview and 585 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Omar S Parra

  • What is Omar S Parra's allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 76%, representing the percentage of his decided applications that were allowed, pooled across all art units in TC 2400. This is a historical statistic and does not predict the outcome of any specific application.
  • How many art units does Omar S Parra cover?
    He covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400. This pooled record aggregates all his decisions across that art unit.
  • What does the allowance rate include?
    The allowance rate is computed from decided applications only—those that were allowed or abandoned. Pending applications are excluded. The figure reflects past decisions and is not a prediction for any future application.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree 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 Omar S Parra 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: 784 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