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

Examiner Ali H Cheema

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 295 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
81%vs 77% weighted peer average+4 pts

Examiner Ali H Cheema has allowed 239 of 295 decided applications.

239 allowed
56 abandoned
Plus 20 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (77%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2497 · 90%AU 2433 · 79%AU 2496 · 45%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Ali H Cheema has an overall allowance rate of 81% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 3 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across these art units the allowance rate ranges from 45% to 90%. These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner Ali H Cheema's record across 3 art units into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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.3 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 2497
197 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

90%
higher than about 52% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497
AU avg 84%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 28 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 27 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition177 decided applications

159 allowed
Plus 20 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.7mo
disposed 31.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.1 mo, disposed 31.7 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 43
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
98%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
78%
ART UNIT 2433
80 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

79%
higher than about 55% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition80 decided applications

63 allowed
17 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.6mo
disposed 33.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.2 mo, disposed 41.6 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
53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
66%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
99%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
63%

Interview benefit

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

without
40%
+56 pts
with
96%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 25 without.

ART UNIT 2496
38 APPS · 45% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

45%
higher than about 21% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496
AU avg 67%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition38 decided applications

17 allowed
21 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.7mo
disposed 36.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.6 mo, disposed 36.2 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 43
42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
94%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 91
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
83%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ali H Cheema

  • What is Examiner Ali H Cheema's overall allowance rate?
    81% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 3 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Ali H Cheema examine in?
    3 art units within Technology Center 2400, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Ali H Cheema's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Across the examiner's substantial art units the allowance rate ranges from 45% to 90% in public USPTO data.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Ali H Cheema 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: 315 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