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

Examiner Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 333 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
83%vs 77% art-unit average+6 pts
higher than about 56% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee has allowed 276 of 333 decided applications.

276 allowed
57 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee holds a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 83%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed, expressed as a share of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The allowance rate is based on the examiner's pooled record and describes past outcomes without indicating the result of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across all assigned art units into a single pooled allowance rate. The 83% figure describes historical outcomes across the examiner's decided caseload and is not a prediction of how any particular application will be handled. Allowance rates vary by art unit, individual application facts, and claim scope. This pooled rate provides context about the examiner's overall record 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.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 2462
379 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 56% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition333 decided applications

276 allowed
57 abandoned
Plus 46 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.3mo
disposed 30.7mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 38.3 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 24
11%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
96%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
29%

Interview benefit

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

without
83%
±0 pts
with
83%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 130 decided applications with an interview and 203 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee

  • What is Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee's allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 83% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This is the percentage of applications that were allowed as a share of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans one art unit in TC 2400. The pooled figures shown here aggregate that single unit.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's past record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, specification, and other application-specific factors.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Intekhaab Aalam Siddiquee 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: 379 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