LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Sajeda Muhebbullah

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 292 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 Sajeda Muhebbullah has allowed 87 of 292 decided applications (30%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

30% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2174 · 27%AU 2141 · 32%AU 2177 · 32%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sajeda Muhebbullah has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 292 decided applications, the examiner allowed 87, for an allowance rate of 30%. The allowance rate ranges from 27% to 32% across these art units. This pooled figure represents applications that were either allowed or abandoned; pending applications are excluded from the calculation. The record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, and individual art-unit rates may vary from the overall aggregate.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate rather than unit-by-unit detail. The 30% figure describes historical disposal outcomes—allowed and abandoned applications combined—across 292 decided cases. This aggregate rate is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range of 27% to 32% reflects variation among the examiner's individual art units; applicants may find separate unit-level data in a dedicated section of this page.

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 2174
150 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE
27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION29 / 80 / 41allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.5 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.9 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW44%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW14%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 64 without.

ART UNIT 2141
127 APPS · 32% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

32% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION40 / 87 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.7 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY65.5 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness41%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW54%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW12%+42 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 68 without.

ART UNIT 2177
56 APPS · 32% ALLOWANCE
32% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION18 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.4 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.4 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW42%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW11%+31 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 18 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sajeda Muhebbullah

  • What is Sajeda Muhebbullah's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 30%, calculated over 292 decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 3 art units (2141, 2174, 2177) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 27% to 32%. Unit-level detail is available in the art-unit section of this page.
  • What does the 30% rate include?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned); pending applications are excluded from the calculation.
◈ 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 Sajeda Muhebbullah 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: 333 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