LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mujtaba M Chaudry

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,424 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Mujtaba M Chaudry has allowed 1,243 of 1,424 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2112 · 88%AU 2133 · 82%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mujtaba M Chaudry maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning 2 art units. Over 1,424 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 87%, with a range from 82% to 88% across individual art units. The record encompasses 1,243 allowed applications and 181 abandoned applications. This pooled figure represents the ratio of decided cases and does not forecast outcomes for any particular filing.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 87% allowance rate describes the examiner's historical proportion of allowed versus abandoned applications among those already decided. Allowance rates are correlational summaries of past dispositions and are not predictions of future application outcomes. Individual art-unit rates may vary; the range reflects that variation across the examiner's assigned units.

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 2112
1,349 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring, and error-correcting coding/decoding.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 89%
DISPOSITION1144 / 159 / 46allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.8 moart unit avg 21.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.4 moart unit avg 31.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 26%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)29%
§103 — Obviousness38% · art unit 55%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%-2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 243 decided applications with an interview and 1,060 without.

ART UNIT 2133
121 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION99 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.7 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%-18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 58 decided applications with an interview and 63 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mujtaba M Chaudry

  • What is Examiner Chaudry's allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 87% across 1,424 disposed applications in TC 2100. This represents the proportion of allowed applications among all decided (allowed or abandoned) cases in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2100. The pooled figures aggregate all applications across these units.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 82% to 88%. The 87% overall figure is a weighted average of decided cases pooled from all assigned units.
  • What does this allowance rate tell me about my application?
    Historical allowance rates describe past dispositions and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Each application is examined individually based on the claims, prior art, and applicable law.
◈ 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 Mujtaba M Chaudry 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: 1,470 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