LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/NOOR ALKHATEEB
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Noor Alkhateeb

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 134 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
56%vs 70% art-unit average14 pts

Examiner Noor Alkhateeb has allowed 75 of 134 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed75abandoned59pending25· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Noor Alkhateeb maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 56%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record. The allowance rate is computed from decided applications only; pending applications are excluded from this calculation. This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across all assigned art units.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to the examiner, producing a single overall allowance rate. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and does not constitute a prediction about any specific application. Art units may differ substantially in subject matter, complexity, and applicant base. An aggregate rate reflects past outcomes across these variables combined, not a uniform rate applied to every application type or art unit.

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 2193
159 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION75 / 59 / 25allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.3 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57%art unit 52%+5 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)43%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness98%art unit 83%+15 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%no art-unit benchmark
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW70%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW21%+49 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 96 decided applications with an interview and 38 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Noor Alkhateeb

  • What is Noor Alkhateeb's overall allowance rate?
    56%, calculated from all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record. Pending applications are excluded.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    One art unit (2193) in Technology Center 2100.
  • Does this allowance rate apply to my application?
    No. This pooled rate describes past outcomes across all applications decided by the examiner. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Noor Alkhateeb 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 July 14, 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: 159 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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