LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SAIF A ALHIJA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Saif A Alhija

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 660 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 Saif A Alhija has allowed 460 of 660 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2128 · 66%AU 2186 · 92%AU 2147 · 88%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Saif A Alhija maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 660 disposed applications, 460 were allowed, yielding a 70% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rates across individual art units range from 66% to 92%, reflecting variation in prosecution outcomes within the technology center. This pooled record aggregates work across multiple art units and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units into a single allowance statistic. The overall rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of how any individual application will be examined. Range figures show that allowance rates vary among the art units included in this examiner's record. Pooled data is useful context for understanding an examiner's overall record but does not forecast any particular case outcome.

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 2128
561 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE

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

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION369 / 192 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.5 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.2 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility76% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW57%+25 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 203 decided applications with an interview and 358 without.

ART UNIT 2186
151 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION84 / 7 / 60allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.6 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.3 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness48% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 34 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

ART UNIT 2147
8 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 44%
DISPOSITION7 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.4 moart unit avg 46.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility88% · art unit 74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness63% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

Based on 8 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Saif A Alhija

  • What is Saif A Alhija's overall allowance rate?
    70% of 660 disposed applications were allowed. This figure is pooled across all art units and represents the examiner's historical record, not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Saif A Alhija has a public record across 3 art units (2128, 2147, 2186) in TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across this examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 66% to 92% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art unit within TC 2100.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    This record is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual examination depends on the application's claims, prior art, and legal issues.
◈ 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 Saif A Alhija 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: 720 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