LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Farhad Ali

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 415 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2021
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
62%vs 69% weighted peer average7 pts

Examiner Farhad Ali has allowed 257 of 415 decided applications.

257 allowed
158 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (69%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2478 · 64%AU 2446 · 45%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Farhad Ali maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400, spanning hundreds of decided applications. The pooled allowance rate is 62%, reflecting the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications across these art units. The allowance rate ranges from 45% to 64% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art unit. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units into a single overall figure. The 62% allowance rate represents the combined outcome across all art units where this examiner has decided applications. Because different art units address different subject matter and claim types, the allowance rates within each art unit may differ from the pool average. Aggregate statistics describe past performance and are not predictions for any pending or future application.

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 2478
364 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

64%
higher than about 29% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition364 decided applications

234 allowed
130 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 25.5mo
disposed 49.9mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 42.7 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 25
31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
81%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
32%

Interview benefit

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

without
50%
+33 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 162 decided applications with an interview and 202 without.

ART UNIT 2446
51 APPS · 45% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

45%
higher than about 30% of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition51 decided applications

23 allowed
28 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 37.9mo
disposed 56.2mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26 mo, disposed 41.9 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 32
67%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
67%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
33%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Farhad Ali

  • What is Farhad Ali's overall allowance rate?
    62%, based on decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 45% to 64% across the examiner's art units.
  • What does this record size represent?
    The pooled record spans hundreds of decided applications.
◈ 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 Farhad Ali 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: 415 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