Examiner Iftekhar A Khan has allowed 484 of 620 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Iftekhar A Khan maintains a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 620 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 78%. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 86% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject-matter classification within TC 2100. The record encompasses 484 allowed applications and 136 abandoned applications. These figures describe the examiner's pooled historical disposition and do not constitute a prediction for any specific application.
This record aggregates decisions across multiple art units and represents the examiner's pooled allowance rate over time. The overall figure of 78% describes past outcomes across decided applications, not a forecast for individual cases. The range of 65% to 86% across art units illustrates that allowance rates vary by art-unit classification. Pooled statistics describe historical performance and are correlational, not predictive of any particular application's outcome.
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 machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 113 without.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 75 decided applications with an interview and 97 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 84 decided applications with an interview and 71 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 54 decided applications with an interview and 56 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Iftekhar A Khan 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: 654 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