LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BABOUCARR FAAL
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Baboucarr Faal

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 645 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Baboucarr Faal has allowed 536 of 645 decided applications (83%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

83% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2138 · 92%AU 2131 · 81%AU 2189 · 74%AU 2184 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Baboucarr Faal's public record spans 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 645 decided applications, the allowance rate is 83%, meaning 536 applications were allowed and 109 abandoned. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 74% to 92% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject matter and art unit. This pooled figure represents the aggregate of work across all four art units and does not indicate performance on any single application or art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units. The 83% allowance rate describes past decisions on 645 completed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range of 74% to 92% across art units reflects natural variation by subject matter. Pooled statistics describe historical patterns and do not forecast results in individual cases or particular art units.

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 2138
255 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION191 / 16 / 48allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.9 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.8 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW93%-1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 107 decided applications with an interview and 100 without.

ART UNIT 2131
245 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION199 / 46 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.6 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW76%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 90 decided applications with an interview and 155 without.

ART UNIT 2189
162 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION120 / 42 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.7 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.6 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness66% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness35%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 53 decided applications with an interview and 109 without.

ART UNIT 2184
31 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units.

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION26 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.3 moart unit avg 20.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.6 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility8% · art unit 17%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%

Based on 31 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Baboucarr Faal

  • What is Baboucarr Faal's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 83% across 645 decided applications pooled from all art units. This means 536 applications were allowed and 109 abandoned. This figure is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a record spanning 4 art units within TC 2100: 2131, 2138, 2184, and 2189. This pooled record aggregates work across all four.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 74% to 92% across the examiner's art units. The pooled 83% figure combines all art units and does not reflect the rate in any single unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application. Actual outcomes depend on the application's merits, claims, and art unit assignment.
◈ 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 Baboucarr Faal 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: 693 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