LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SANA A AL HASHEMI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Sana A Al Hashemi

TECH CENTER 2100 · 7 ART UNITS · 1,078 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 7 ART UNITS

Examiner Sana A Al Hashemi has allowed 896 of 1,078 decided applications (83%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

83% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2156 · 81%AU 2164 · 78%AU 2165 · 98%AU 2162 · 88%AU 2171 · 71%AU 2169 · 78%AU 2161 · 88%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sana A Al Hashemi maintains a public record spanning 7 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 1,078 disposed applications, 896 were allowed, yielding an 83% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rates vary across art units, ranging from 71% to 98%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate of decided cases and does not account for pending applications. The breadth of art-unit assignments reflects the examiner's work across multiple subject areas within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units into a single allowance rate. The 83% figure describes past disposition patterns and is a historical summary only—not a prediction for any specific application. Individual art units within TC 2100 show varying allowance rates (71% to 98%), reflecting differences in subject matter complexity, examiner assignment, or applicant behavior within those units. Pooled data provides context on overall record but does not forecast outcomes in any particular case.

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 2156
641 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION521 / 120 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 20.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.7 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness49% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 169 decided applications with an interview and 472 without.

ART UNIT 2164
110 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION86 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.4 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 78 without.

ART UNIT 2165
110 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

98% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION108 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness33% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW100%-6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 78 without.

ART UNIT 2162
109 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION96 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.7 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.4 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness23%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 44 decided applications with an interview and 65 without.

ART UNIT 2171
38 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION27 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.5 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
ART UNIT 2169
37 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION29 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.1 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY64.9 moart unit avg 40 mo
ART UNIT 2161
33 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION29 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.6 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.9 moart unit avg 39 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sana A Al Hashemi

  • What is Examiner Sana A Al Hashemi's overall allowance rate?
    Across 1,078 disposed applications in TC 2100, the examiner allowed 896 applications, for an 83% allowance rate.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record spans 7 art units (2156, 2161, 2162, 2164, 2165, 2169, 2171) within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 71% to 98% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in disposition patterns by unit.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The 83% figure describes past decisions pooled across all art units 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 Sana A Al Hashemi 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: 1,078 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