LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Abdullah Al Kawsar

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 471 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Abdullah Al Kawsar has allowed 382 of 471 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

81% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2195 · 83%AU 2127 · 80%AU 2171 · 38%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Abdullah Al Kawsar maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 471 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 81%, with an allowance rate range from 80% to 83% across the art units. The record encompasses 486 total applications, of which 382 were allowed and 89 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and represents the examiner's historical disposition of decided cases.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates statistics across multiple art units, creating a single summary figure for an examiner's overall allowance rate. The 81% allowance rate reflects past outcomes on 471 decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Understanding that this figure spans three different art units helps contextualize the range of 80% to 83% observed across individual units. Pooled data describes historical record only.

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 →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by 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 2195
403 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION333 / 70 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.9 moart unit avg 33.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)47%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness71%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+24 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 229 decided applications with an interview and 174 without.

ART UNIT 2127
70 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION44 / 11 / 15allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.6 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility78% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW55%+42 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 22 without.

ART UNIT 2171
13 APPS · 38% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
38% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION5 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.7 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.6 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Abdullah Al Kawsar

  • What is Abdullah Al Kawsar's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 81% across 471 decided applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 3 art units (2127, 2171, 2195) in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 83% across the examiner's art units. Detailed rates for each individual art unit are available in the per-art-unit section.
  • What does this pooled record represent?
    The pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and reflects historical dispositions. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Abdullah Al Kawsar has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 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: 486 applications.

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