LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mohamed Abou El Seoud

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 222 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 Mohamed Abou El Seoud has allowed 93 of 222 decided applications (42%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

42% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2148 · 43%AU 2142 · 44%AU 2172 · 42%AU 2174 · 37%AU 2176 · 40%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mohamed Abou El Seoud has a public record of 288 total applications across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 222 disposed applications, 93 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 42%. The allowance rate ranges from 37% to 44% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's aggregate record; individual art units within TC 2100 show variation around this overall rate.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 42% allowance rate describes past decisions on 222 closed applications and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending or future application. The range (37%–44%) reflects variation among the examiner's art units. Pooled statistics describe what occurred; they do not determine individual prosecution outcomes.

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 2148
110 APPS · 43% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

43% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION19 / 25 / 66allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.3 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility76% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness71%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW54%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW25%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 16 without.

ART UNIT 2142
66 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION29 / 37 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.4 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.7 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility46% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW55%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW16%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 19 without.

ART UNIT 2172
64 APPS · 42% ALLOWANCE
42% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION27 / 37 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.4 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.6 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW57%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW22%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 27 without.

ART UNIT 2174
38 APPS · 37% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
37% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION14 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.6 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.7 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness82%

Based on 38 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2176
10 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

40% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION4 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.7 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55.7 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility80% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%

Based on 10 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mohamed Abou El Seoud

  • What is Mohamed Abou El Seoud's overall allowance rate?
    42%, based on 93 allowed applications out of 222 disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    5 art units (2142, 2148, 2172, 2174, 2176) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 37% to 44% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in the record by subject matter within TC 2100.
  • Does this record predict what will happen to my application?
    No. This pooled record describes past decisions. It 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 Mohamed Abou El Seoud 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: 288 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