LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Abdullahi Elmi Salad

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 148 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
71%vs 55% weighted peer average+16 pts

Examiner Abdullahi Elmi Salad has allowed 105 of 148 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed105abandoned43pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (55%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2157 · 71%AU 2153 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Abdullahi Elmi Salad maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate stands at 71% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed, measured against all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in his record. The figure represents historical disposition data and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates activity across multiple art units within TC 2100. Aggregate allowance rates describe past outcomes across a body of decided cases and reflect the examiner's historical record. Such figures are correlational summaries of prior dispositions, not predictive models for individual applications. The breadth of the record—spanning 2 art units—means the overall rate reflects work across different examination areas within the technology center.

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 2157
146 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION103 / 43 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.6 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 110 without.

ART UNIT 2153
2 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION2 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION5.2 moart unit avg 27.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY13.2 moart unit avg 41.6 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Abdullahi Elmi Salad

  • What is Examiner Salad's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 71% across hundreds of decided applications in his pooled record. This represents the percentage of applications allowed out of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans 2 art units (2153 and 2157) within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the pooled allowance rate apply to my specific application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of outcome for any individual application. Each application is examined independently based on its merits.
  • What does 'hundreds of decided applications' mean?
    It indicates the size category of the examiner's decided-application pool. The exact count appears in the statistical boxes; the prose refers to applications by this magnitude descriptor only.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Abdullahi Elmi Salad 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 July 14, 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: 148 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