LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RAMI RAFAT OKASHA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Rami Rafat Okasha

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 216 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Rami Rafat Okasha has allowed 141 of 216 decided applications (65%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

65% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2118 · 87%AU 2173 · 46%AU 2144 · 90%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Rami Rafat Okasha maintains a public record of 253 applications across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 216 disposed applications, 141 were allowed, yielding a 65% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 46% to 90%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate outcome across all three art units and represents applications that have been decided—either allowed or abandoned—excluding any pending matters.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, masking variation within each unit. The overall allowance rate (65% across 216 decided applications) describes past disposal patterns and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (46% to 90%) shows that allowance rates differ among the three art units; the aggregate figure does not apply uniformly to each. Art-unit–specific records appear separately.

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 2118
116 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE
87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION69 / 10 / 37allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.6 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)96%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2173
116 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE
46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION53 / 63 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.3 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.7 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW8%+55 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 80 decided applications with an interview and 36 without.

ART UNIT 2144
21 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION19 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.2 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness76%

Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Rami Rafat Okasha

  • What is the overall allowance rate for this examiner?
    65%, based on 141 allowed applications out of 216 disposed applications across all three art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2118, 2144, 2173), all within TC 2100.
  • How much does the allowance rate vary across this examiner's art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 46% to 90% across the examiner's art units. This range reflects variation among individual units; the pooled 65% figure is an aggregate across all three.
  • Does the pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The 65% figure describes applications already decided. 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 Rami Rafat Okasha 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: 253 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