Examiner Hamdy S Ahmed has allowed 311 of 385 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Hamdy S Ahmed has a public record of 385 disposed applications across 7 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 311 were allowed and 74 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 81%. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 63% to 88%. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's combined record in art units 2133, 2139, 2181, 2186, 2188, 2189, and 2192.
This profile aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units in TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 81% describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Because the record spans seven art units with different subject matter and filing patterns, the aggregate rate masks variation among those units. Individual art-unit records are available separately and may provide more targeted context for applications in a particular unit.
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).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 25 decided applications with an interview and 135 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 21 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.
Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 20 decided applications with an interview and 60 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Based on 48 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.
Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units, and program control and execution.
Primarily examines software engineering.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Hamdy S Ahmed 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: 385 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