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

Examiner Sherief Badawi

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 241 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Sherief Badawi has allowed 144 of 241 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

60% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2167 · 59%AU 2169 · 71%AU 2156 · 58%AU 2174 · 67%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sherief Badawi maintains a public record across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 241 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 60%. Of the total 265 applications on record, 144 were allowed and 97 were abandoned. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 59% to 71%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's activity across all four art units and describes the past record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile presents a pooled record, combining data from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. The 60% figure reflects historical outcomes across all art units where the examiner has worked, not a prediction for any individual application. Pooled rates mask variation—note the range from 59% to 71% across different art units. Understanding this variation requires review of per-art-unit detail, which appears separately. Aggregate statistics describe past work and are correlational only.

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 2167
199 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION117 / 82 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26 moart unit avg 24.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.7 moart unit avg 41.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 43%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 71 decided applications with an interview and 128 without.

ART UNIT 2169
38 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION10 / 4 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.8 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility83% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%

Based on 38 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2156
19 APPS · 58% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

58% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION11 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.9 moart unit avg 20.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY68.6 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%

Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2174
9 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION6 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.9 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.8 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sherief Badawi

  • What is Sherief Badawi's overall allowance rate?
    60% of decided applications (144 allowed of 241 disposed applications across all art units).
  • How many art units has this examiner worked in?
    Four art units (2156, 2167, 2169, 2174) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 59% to 71% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes by field.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This aggregate describes the examiner's past record only. It is not a prediction for any specific application and does not forecast the outcome of your case.
◈ 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 Sherief Badawi 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: 265 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