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

Examiner Alina A Boutah

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,016 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
90%vs 64% weighted peer average+26 pts

Examiner Alina A Boutah has allowed 916 of 1,016 decided applications.

916 allowed
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (64%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2443 · 86%AU 2458 · 99%AU 2442 · 95%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Alina A Boutah holds a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2400, spanning more than a thousand decided applications. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 90% of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). This rate varies among the art units served: the allowance rate ranges from 86% to 99% across these art units. The pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all three units and reflects the examiner's historical disposition on decided matters in this technology center.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates allowance data across multiple art units into a single overall figure. This aggregate represents historical outcomes on decided applications and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application. The range reported here shows variation among individual art units but does not assign any particular rate to any particular unit. Pooled statistics describe past record only and apply to no individual case.

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 2443
650 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 64% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2443
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2443; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition650 decided applications

561 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.9mo
disposed 36.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 40.7 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 37
38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
71%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
42%

Interview benefit

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

without
79%
+16 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 297 decided applications with an interview and 353 without.

ART UNIT 2458
204 APPS · 99% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

99%
higher than about 91% 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.

Disposition164 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 24.5mo
disposed 28.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.9 mo, disposed 39.5 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 38
39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
73%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
44%

Interview benefit

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

without
100%
2 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 109 without.

ART UNIT 2442
202 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

95%
higher than about 95% of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442
AU avg 50%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition202 decided applications

192 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 13.1mo
disposed 21.2mo
0
24mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.1 mo, disposed 43.6 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 39
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
86%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
69%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
40%

Interview benefit

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

without
93%
+4 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 116 decided applications with an interview and 86 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alina A Boutah

  • What is Examiner Boutah's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 90% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Boutah holds a record across 3 art units in TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates among the art units?
    Allowance rates among the examiner's art units range from 86% to 99%.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    No. Pooled statistics describe historical outcomes and are not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Alina A Boutah 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: 1,056 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