LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SHAHID AL ALAM
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ 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
88%vs 64% weighted peer average+24 pts

Examiner Shahid Al Alam has allowed 1,138 of 1,287 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed1,138abandoned149pending19· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (64%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2162 · 83%AU 2161 · 99%AU 2172 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Shahid Al Alam's public record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across more than a thousand decided applications pooled from these art units, the examiner's allowance rate is 88%. This rate reflects the share of applications in the decided category—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 83% to 99%, reflecting variation in outcomes by individual art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units in TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 88% describes the historical record across all decided applications in this combined set. Aggregate figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art units may show different rates; separate data on per-art-unit records is available elsewhere on 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 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
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility62%art unit 56%+6 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness76%art unit 79%3 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%no art-unit benchmark
// 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
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51%art unit 52%1 pt
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness63%art unit 88%25 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%no art-unit benchmark
// 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 Shahid Al Alam's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 88% across more than a thousand decided applications, pooled across all art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 3 art units: 2161, 2162, and 2172, all 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 83% to 99% across the examiner's art units. This variation reflects differences in outcomes by individual art unit, and detailed per-art-unit data appears separately.
  • Does the pooled record predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes across decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 July 14, 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.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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