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

Examiner Helai Salehi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 551 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
74%vs 64% art-unit average+10 pts
higher than about 45% 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.

Examiner Helai Salehi has allowed 410 of 551 decided applications.

410 allowed
141 abandoned
Plus 33 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Helai Salehi maintains a public record across 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. The pooled allowance rate is 74%, measured across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications that issued as allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's record. The allowance rate reflects historical outcomes and does not predict disposition of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates statistics across multiple art units into a single profile. The figures shown represent historical outcomes across all art units where the examiner has worked. An aggregate allowance rate describes past performance across that combined set and is not a prediction for any individual application. Specific art-unit breakdowns appear in separate sections of this page.

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 2433
584 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

74%
higher than about 45% 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.

Disposition551 decided applications

410 allowed
141 abandoned
Plus 33 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.2mo
disposed 41.9mo
0
48mo
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
51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
79%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
34%

Interview benefit

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

without
58%
+32 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 279 decided applications with an interview and 272 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Helai Salehi

  • What is Examiner Salehi's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 74%, calculated as the share of allowed applications among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across the examiner's art units. This is a historical figure and not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Salehi's public record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate measures the percentage of decided applications that issued as allowed. Pending applications are excluded. The figure aggregates all art units and describes past outcomes only.
  • How large is the sample of decided applications?
    The allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across all the examiner'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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Helai Salehi 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: 584 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