LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/TRAVIS D POGMORE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Travis D Pogmore

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 50 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
54%vs 70% art-unit average16 pts
higher than about 16% 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 Travis D Pogmore has allowed 27 of 50 decided applications.

27 allowed
23 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Travis D Pogmore maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the allowance rate is 54%. This figure reflects the share of applications in which a final disposition (allowance or abandonment) has been reached. The 54% allowance rate represents the examiner's pooled historical record and describes outcomes on applications already decided; it does not forecast the outcome of any pending or future application.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's decisions across all art units under his jurisdiction. The pooled allowance rate—54%—is a historical measure of past dispositions and serves only to characterize the examiner's record to date. Aggregate figures do not predict the result in any individual case. Art-unit boundaries and subject-matter variations may affect individual applications differently than the pooled average reflects.

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
50 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

54%
higher than about 16% 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.

Disposition50 decided applications

27 allowed
23 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39.7mo
disposed 52.3mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 mo.

Interview benefit

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

without
35%
+49 pts
with
84%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 19 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Travis D Pogmore

  • What is Travis D Pogmore's overall allowance rate?
    54%, measured as the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned, with pending cases excluded) across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    One art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The 54% allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past decided applications only. It does not predict the outcome of any specific pending or future application.
  • What technology does this examiner handle?
    Technology Center 2400. Subject-matter details appear in the art-unit profile section of this page.
◈ 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.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 Travis D Pogmore 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: 50 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