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

Examiner Farrukh Hussain

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 167 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
63%vs 64% art-unit average1 pt
higher than about 45% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Farrukh Hussain has allowed 105 of 167 decided applications.

105 allowed
62 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Farrukh Hussain maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate is 63%, measured across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided matters—those allowed plus those abandoned—in his record. The 63% rate describes his historical record and does not forecast outcomes in any specific pending application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction. The allowance rate shown here is a historical statistic reflecting past decisions across different application types within the technology center. Such aggregate figures describe what occurred in prior applications, not what will occur in any future case. Individual applications may vary significantly from pooled averages.

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 2444
167 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

63%
higher than about 45% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition167 decided applications

105 allowed
62 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 29.2mo
disposed 61.3mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
62%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%

Interview benefit

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

without
56%
+10 pts
with
66%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 110 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Farrukh Hussain

  • What is Examiner Hussain's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 63%, reflecting the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) that were allowed across his record in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does Examiner Hussain cover?
    Examiner Hussain works in one art unit (Art Unit 2444) within TC 2400.
  • What does the pooled rate tell me about my application?
    The pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
  • How large is the sample underlying these figures?
    The allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across Examiner Hussain's art units.
◈ 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 Farrukh Hussain 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: 167 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