This examiner has a small public record (29applications), so we don't publish a record summary — small samples over-state patterns. The per-art-unit figures below are shown for completeness.
Examiner Ahmad Hussam Shalaby maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), spanning one art unit. Across 29 total applications in the examiner's pooled record, zero applications have been allowed, zero abandoned, and zero disposed. Because no applications have reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned), no allowance rate can be calculated. The record reflects applications in various stages of prosecution, with no completed dispositions available for statistical analysis at this time.
A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to an examiner and describes the historical record only—it is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. When no applications have been disposed (allowed or abandoned), an allowance rate cannot be computed. Pooled figures represent past activity and do not forecast prosecution results for individual cases.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Based on 29 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Ahmad Hussam Shalaby 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: 29 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