LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/AFTAB N KHAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Aftab N Khan

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 595 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
85%vs 70% art-unit average+15 pts
higher than about 63% of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 58 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 57 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Aftab N Khan has allowed 505 of 595 decided applications.

505 allowed
90 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Aftab N Khan maintains a pooled record in Technology Center 2400, spanning 1 art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner issued allowances in 85% of cases. This allowance rate reflects the ratio of allowed applications to the total of allowed and abandoned applications, excluding pending matters. The pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregated record across all assigned art units and does not predict outcomes in any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates statistics from all art units assigned to an examiner. The allowance rate shown is a historical average calculated from all decided applications in that combined set. Pooled figures describe the past record only and are not predictions for any single case. Individual art units may show different rates; those appear in separate detailed sections.

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.1 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 2454
635 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 63% of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 58 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 57 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition595 decided applications

505 allowed
90 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.4mo
disposed 34.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.8 mo, disposed 40.6 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 41
49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
72%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
57%

Interview benefit

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

without
61%
+32 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 440 decided applications with an interview and 155 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Aftab N Khan

  • What is this examiner's allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 85%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents allowed applications as a share of all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications, excluding pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    This examiner is assigned to 1 art unit. The figures shown are pooled across all assigned art units and represent an aggregate record.
  • Does the pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical data only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on many factors not captured in aggregate statistics.
  • Why is the record pooled across art units?
    Pooling aggregates an examiner's complete assigned workload to show overall patterns. Individual art-unit rates are reported separately; this pooled section provides the broadest view of the examiner's record.
◈ 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 Aftab N Khan 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: 635 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