LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Abdullah A Riyami

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 271 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2014
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
84%vs 72% weighted peer average+12 pts

Examiner Abdullah A Riyami has allowed 228 of 271 decided applications.

228 allowed
43 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (72%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2474 · 86%AU 2416 · 64%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Abdullah A Riyami maintains a pooled allowance rate of 84% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 64% to 86% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects all allowed and abandoned applications decided by the examiner and excludes pending cases. The range indicates variation in allowance rates among the distinct art units within the examiner's assignment.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that represents historical outcomes. The 84% figure describes past decisions on allowed and abandoned applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (64% to 86%) reflects differences among individual art units but does not indicate which specific unit will handle any given case. Pooled statistics describe the examiner's aggregate record 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 →

The record, art unit by art unit.2 art units

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 2474
246 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 63% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2474
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2474; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition246 decided applications

212 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.7mo
disposed 43.6mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.7 mo, disposed 38.7 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

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 eligibility
AU 25
32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
72%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
49%

Interview benefit

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

without
83%
+14 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 185 without.

ART UNIT 2416
25 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

64%
higher than about 49% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition25 decided applications

16 allowed
9 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 37.6mo
disposed 65mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Abdullah A Riyami

  • What is Examiner Riyami's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 84% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400, reflecting all allowed and abandoned cases in the examiner's record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Riyami's record spans 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 64% to 86% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes among the distinct units.
  • Is the 84% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's result.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Abdullah A Riyami has a public record within Technology Center 2400. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated July 22, 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: 271 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