LYNCH·LLP
Book a consultation →
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HAMID TALAMINAEI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Hamid Talaminaei

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 57 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2023
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
82%vs 70% art-unit average+12 pts
higher than about 59% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Hamid Talaminaei has allowed 47 of 57 decided applications.

47 allowed
10 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Hamid Talaminaei maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate is 82%, calculated as the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across dozens of decided applications. This rate reflects outcomes in applications that have reached a final disposition. The record spans a single art unit within the technology center, providing a focused view of examination activity in that area of practice.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates examination outcomes across the examiner's assigned art unit(s). The allowance rate of 82% describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures obscure variation that may exist within individual art units; a separate section of this page provides per-art-unit detail. Aggregate statistics serve as historical context only and do not predict future results on any particular 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.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 2436
57 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 59% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition57 decided applications

47 allowed
10 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.6mo
disposed 34.5mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 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 48
48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
44%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
50%

Interview benefit

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

without
40%
+58 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 42 decided applications with an interview and 15 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hamid Talaminaei

  • What is Hamid Talaminaei's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 82%, meaning 82% of his decided applications (allowed and abandoned) resulted in allowance across dozens of decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual results depend on application-specific facts, prior art, and examination of the claims presented.
  • What does the 'decided' count mean?
    Decided applications are those that have reached final disposition—either allowed or abandoned—and are included in the allowance-rate calculation. Pending applications are excluded.
◈ 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 applications →Application drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practice →Appeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategy →How a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorney →Free 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 Hamid Talaminaei 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: 57 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