LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Afshawn M Towfighi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,361 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
89%vs 82% weighted peer average+7 pts

Examiner Afshawn M Towfighi has allowed 1,218 of 1,361 decided applications.

1,218 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (82%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2469 · 91%AU 2458 · 44%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Afshawn M Towfighi maintains a public record spanning 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across more than a thousand decided applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate is 89%. This rate represents the share of applications in the decided population (allowed and abandoned combined) relative to all decided applications, and does not reflect pending applications. The allowance rate ranges from 44% to 91% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes across the different areas of subject matter handled.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units within TC 2400. The 89% figure is a historical summary of decided applications across all those units combined—it describes past dispositions and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application. Examining art-unit-specific records separately may reveal patterns distinct from the pooled average. The range shown reflects that allowance rates vary by art unit; the aggregate does not predict outcomes in any particular area.

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 2469
1,368 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 69% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition1,325 decided applications

1,202 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.5mo
disposed 27.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 34.8 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 24
14%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
78%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 90
62%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
29%

Interview benefit

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

without
89%
+6 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 372 decided applications with an interview and 953 without.

ART UNIT 2458
36 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

44%
higher than about 32% of the 44 examiners with published rates in art unit 2458
AU avg 59%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 44 examiners with published rates in art unit 2458; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 45 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 44 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition36 decided applications

16 allowed
20 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 30.4mo
disposed 41.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.9 mo, disposed 39.5 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Afshawn M Towfighi

  • What is Afshawn M Towfighi's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 89% across more than a thousand decided applications, representing the share of applications allowed or abandoned relative to all decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 44% to 91% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes across different subject-matter areas.
  • Does the pooled rate predict what will happen to my application?
    No. The pooled figure is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Art-unit-specific rates may differ materially from the aggregate.
◈ 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.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 Afshawn M Towfighi 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: 1,404 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