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

Examiner Fahmida Rahman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 671 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 Fahmida Rahman has allowed 544 of 671 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

81% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2116 · 74%AU 2186 · 86%AU 2175 · 96%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Fahmida Rahman maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 671 disposed applications, she has allowed 544, for an allowance rate of 81%. This rate reflects a pooled aggregate across her assigned art units. The allowance rates within individual art units range from 74% to 96%, indicating variation in outcomes across the different areas of TC 2100 in which she has worked. The record spans 709 total applications, with 127 abandonments.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications and dispositions across multiple art units. The 81% overall allowance rate describes past outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction for any specific case. Variations in allowance rates across her art units reflect differing application mixes and art-unit characteristics, not uniform performance. Aggregate statistics describe historical patterns and do not forecast outcomes on individual matters.

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 2116
364 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION270 / 94 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.9 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)63%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW50%+46 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 190 decided applications with an interview and 174 without.

ART UNIT 2186
207 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION178 / 29 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.7 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility23% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW47%+50 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 162 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

ART UNIT 2175
138 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION96 / 4 / 38allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.8 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.2 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW87%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 77 decided applications with an interview and 23 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Fahmida Rahman

  • What is Fahmida Rahman's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 81% across 671 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does she work in?
    She maintains a record across three art units: 2116, 2175, and 2186.
  • Do her allowance rates vary by art unit?
    Yes. Her allowance rates range from 74% to 96% across her assigned art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within TC 2100.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    This aggregate record describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 Fahmida Rahman 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: 709 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