LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SHAHID AL ALAM
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Shahid Al Alam

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,287 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 Shahid Al Alam has allowed 1,138 of 1,287 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

88% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2162 · 83%AU 2161 · 99%AU 2172 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Shahid Al Alam maintains a public record spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 1,287 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 1,138, yielding an 88% allowance rate. This rate reflects decided cases (allowed plus abandoned) and excludes pending applications. The examiner's allowance rates across individual art units range from 83% to 99%, reflecting variation in prosecution outcomes within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units. The overall allowance rate describes historical decisions on disposed applications and is a factual summary of past outcomes. This aggregate figure does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units may show different rates; the range reflects that variation but does not identify which art unit produced which rate.

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 2162
820 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION684 / 136 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.8 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility62% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW76%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 368 decided applications with an interview and 452 without.

ART UNIT 2161
411 APPS · 99% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

99% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION390 / 2 / 19allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.1 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness64% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW100%-1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 170 decided applications with an interview and 222 without.

ART UNIT 2172
75 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE
85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION64 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.6 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.4 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 16 decided applications with an interview and 59 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shahid Al Alam

  • What is Examiner Al Alam's overall allowance rate?
    88% across 1,287 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100. This rate includes allowed and abandoned applications and does not predict any individual application's outcome.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units: 2161, 2162, and 2172, all within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 83% to 99% across the art units in this examiner's pooled record.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record summarizes past outcomes and is not a prediction of disposition for any specific application. Outcome depends on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history.
◈ 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 Shahid Al Alam 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: 1,306 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