LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/FAISAL M ZAMAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Faisal M Zaman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 1,039 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Faisal M Zaman has allowed 704 of 1,039 decided applications (68%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

68% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2111 · 57%AU 2185 · 67%AU 2175 · 88%AU 2186 · 80%AU 2112 · 68%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Faisal M Zaman maintains a public record across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,039 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 68%. This rate reflects 704 allowed applications and 335 abandoned applications pooled across all assigned art units. The allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 57% to 88%. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregated record and does not apply uniformly to any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates the examiner's activity across multiple art units within the technology center. The overall allowance rate describes past outcomes across all assigned units combined and is not a prediction of the outcome for any individual application. Variation in allowance rates across art units reflects differences in examination activity within each unit. Pooled figures are useful for understanding an examiner's overall record but do not predict results on a specific case.

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 2111
375 APPS · 57% ALLOWANCE
57% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION212 / 163 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.1 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.8 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility12% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)56%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW52%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 90 decided applications with an interview and 285 without.

ART UNIT 2185
364 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE
67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION244 / 120 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.2 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 125 decided applications with an interview and 239 without.

ART UNIT 2175
171 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

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

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION104 / 14 / 53allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.3 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.9 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 80 without.

ART UNIT 2186
163 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION131 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.2 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness41%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW78%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 104 without.

ART UNIT 2112
19 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring, and error-correcting coding/decoding.

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 89%
DISPOSITION13 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 21.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.4 moart unit avg 31.8 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Faisal M Zaman

  • What is Faisal M Zaman's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 68%, based on 1,039 decided applications (704 allowed and 335 abandoned) pooled across all assigned art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record spans 5 art units within Technology Center 2100: 2111, 2112, 2175, 2185, and 2186.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across these art units range from 57% to 88%, reflecting variation in examination outcomes within each unit.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes past outcomes across all art units combined and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Faisal M Zaman 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: 1,092 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