LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MARIA S AYAD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Maria S Ayad

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 168 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 Maria S Ayad has allowed 57 of 168 decided applications (34%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

34% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 34%AU 2172 · 51%AU 2175 · 8%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Maria S Ayad maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 168 disposed applications, her allowance rate is 34%. The allowance rate—the percentage of applications decided (allowed or abandoned) relative to total decided filings—ranges from 8% to 51% across her art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within TC 2100. Her overall record spans 208 total applications, of which 57 were allowed and 111 were abandoned. These figures describe her past performance and are not predictions of outcomes in any individual case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that masks differences among individual units. The 34% figure reflects all decided cases across her 3 art units combined and describes past dispositions only. The range (8% to 51%) indicates that allowance rates vary significantly by art unit within TC 2100. Pooled statistics are historical summaries, not forecasts of specific applications. Art-unit specific records appear separately on this page.

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 2145
107 APPS · 34% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

34% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION36 / 71 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.5 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.5 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW40%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW21%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 73 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.

ART UNIT 2172
77 APPS · 51% ALLOWANCE
51% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION19 / 18 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.5 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
ART UNIT 2175
24 APPS · 8% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

8% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION2 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.5 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.9 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%

Based on 24 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Maria S Ayad

  • What is Maria S Ayad's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 34% across 168 disposed applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does she examine in?
    She maintains a public record in 3 art units: 2145, 2172, and 2175, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Across her art units, allowance rates range from 8% to 51%, indicating variation within TC 2100.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. These figures describe her past record. They are 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 Maria S Ayad 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: 208 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