LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/OMAR R ABDUL-ALI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Omar R Abdul-Ali

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 534 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Omar R Abdul-Ali has allowed 426 of 534 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 88%AU 2172 · 69%AU 2173 · 47%AU 2178 · 44%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Omar R Abdul-Ali has a pooled allowance rate of 80% across 534 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans four art units: 2142, 2172, 2173, and 2178. Of the 534 decided applications, 426 were allowed and 108 were abandoned. Allowance rates across these art units range from 44% to 88%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications examined within each unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across four art units within TC 2100. The 80% overall figure represents historical outcomes across all units combined and describes past disposal data, not a prediction for any individual application. Art units may have different allowance rates due to differences in application types, complexity, or subject matter within the technology center. The range indicates this variation.

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 2142
403 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

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

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION354 / 49 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.8 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)65%
§103 — Obviousness73% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness12%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 336 without.

ART UNIT 2172
52 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE
69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION36 / 16 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.2 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness10%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW57%+43 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2173
43 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
47% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION20 / 23 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.5 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.8 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness50% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 43 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2178
36 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION16 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.5 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Omar R Abdul-Ali

  • What is Omar R Abdul-Ali's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 80%, calculated across 534 disposed applications (426 allowed, 108 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units: 2142, 2172, 2173, and 2178, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 44% to 88% across his art units. This range reflects variation in outcomes but does not identify specific rates per unit.
  • Does the 80% rate apply to my application?
    No. This pooled figure describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 Omar R Abdul-Ali 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: 534 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