LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ASAD M NAWAZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Asad M Nawaz

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 81 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
53%vs 55% art-unit average2 pts

Examiner Asad M Nawaz has allowed 43 of 81 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed43abandoned38pending0· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Asad M Nawaz maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 53%. This rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The examiner's pooled record spans one art unit. These figures describe the examiner's historical record and do not predict outcomes in any specific pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to an examiner, presenting an overall picture of their past dispositions. The allowance rate shown here is a historical average—the percentage of decided applications that were allowed. This aggregate figure characterizes the examiner's past record only and is not a prediction of how any particular application will be examined or decided.

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 2155
81 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

53% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION43 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION38.9 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY59.5 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW43%+28 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Asad M Nawaz

  • What is Examiner Nawaz's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 53%, calculated as allowed applications divided by all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across dozens of decided cases in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's pooled record covers one art unit. The figures presented aggregate all decided applications within that assignment.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical statistic and does not predict how any specific pending application will be examined or decided.
  • What technology areas does this examiner handle?
    The examiner is assigned to Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
◈ 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.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 Asad M Nawaz 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: 81 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