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

Examiner Hussein A El Chanti

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 192 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
77%vs 74% weighted peer average+3 pts

Examiner Hussein A El Chanti has allowed 147 of 192 decided applications.

147 allowed
45 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (74%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2457 · 70%AU 2441 · 90%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Hussein A El Chanti maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 77%. This rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record. The allowance rate ranges from 70% to 90% across these art units, indicating variation in the rates observed within individual art units that compose this aggregate.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units. The figures presented—the overall allowance rate and the range across art units—describe the historical record and do not constitute predictions about any specific application. Pooled data masks the variation within individual art units; the range shown indicates such variation exists. These statistics are correlational, not causal, and reflect past decisions only.

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 2457
129 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

70%
higher than about 21% of the 39 examiners with published rates in art unit 2457
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 39 examiners with published rates in art unit 2457; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 40 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 39 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition129 decided applications

90 allowed
39 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.7mo
disposed 57.6mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.9 mo, disposed 39.3 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
31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
62%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 73
15%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
23%

Interview benefit

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

without
69%
+7 pts
with
76%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 112 without.

ART UNIT 2441
63 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

90%
higher than about 89% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition63 decided applications

57 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 24.1mo
disposed 46.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 40.1 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 42
67%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
88%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
33%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hussein A El Chanti

  • What is Hussein A El Chanti's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 77%, calculated as a share of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 70% to 90% across the examiner's art units. Individual art units may have substantially different rates.
  • How large is the sample of decided applications?
    The pooled record covers hundreds of decided applications across all 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Hussein A El Chanti 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: 192 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