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

Examiner Alazar Tilahun

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 716 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
73%vs 63% art-unit average+10 pts
higher than about 54% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424
AU avg 63%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Alazar Tilahun has allowed 521 of 716 decided applications.

521 allowed
195 abandoned
Plus 44 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Alazar Tilahun maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 73%. This rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending applications. The 73% figure is drawn from the examiner's pooled record across all art units and represents outcomes on applications that have received final disposition. This record is historical data and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across all assigned art units into a single pooled allowance rate. The 73% figure describes past outcomes on decided applications within TC 2400 and represents a historical average, not a forecast for any individual case. Pooled statistics combine outcomes across different art units and application types, so variation by specific technology area or application characteristics may exist but is not visible in this aggregate view.

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 2424
760 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

73%
higher than about 54% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424
AU avg 63%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2424; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition716 decided applications

521 allowed
195 abandoned
Plus 44 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.3mo
disposed 34.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.5 mo, disposed 42.1 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 27
22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
77%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
26%

Interview benefit

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

without
71%
+10 pts
with
81%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 143 decided applications with an interview and 573 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alazar Tilahun

  • What is Examiner Tilahun's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 73% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This reflects the share of applications that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner is assigned to one art unit within TC 2400.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my specific application?
    No. The 73% rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of outcome for any particular application. Individual results vary by application merits, prior art, claim scope, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Alazar Tilahun 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: 760 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