LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MOHAMMAD H KABIR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mohammad H Kabir

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 441 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 Mohammad H Kabir has allowed 303 of 441 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2198 · 81%AU 2192 · 76%AU 2199 · 59%AU 2197 · 53%AU 2154 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mohammad H Kabir's public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spans 5 art units and covers 441 disposed applications. Of those decided applications, 303 were allowed and 138 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 69%. Across the examiner's art units, allowance rates range from 53% to 81%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate record across all art units in which the examiner has maintained a substantial filing history.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, masking variation between them. The overall allowance rate of 69% describes past decisions across all 5 art units combined and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may differ materially from the pooled average. The range (53%–81%) indicates that variation exists. Pooled statistics describe historical data only.

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 2198
154 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION125 / 29 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.4 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.7 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)66%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW83%-4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 71 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.

ART UNIT 2192
123 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering.

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION71 / 22 / 30allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility65% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW52%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 68 decided applications with an interview and 25 without.

ART UNIT 2199
118 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and program control and execution.

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION70 / 48 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.2 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.4 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness66%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW62%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW45%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 98 decided applications with an interview and 20 without.

ART UNIT 2197
70 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

53% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION37 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.8 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.4 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW28%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 25 without.

ART UNIT 2154
6 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION0 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.3 moart unit avg 27.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.6 moart unit avg 41.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%

Based on 6 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mohammad H Kabir

  • What is Mohammad H Kabir's overall allowance rate?
    69%, based on 441 disposed applications (303 allowed, 138 abandoned) across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    5 art units (2154, 2192, 2197, 2198, 2199), all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 53% to 81% across the examiner's art units with substantial records. This range reflects variation in outcomes by art unit.
  • Does the pooled 69% rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application. Outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history.
◈ 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 Mohammad H Kabir 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: 471 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