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

Examiner Jahangir Kabir

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 619 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
82%vs 68% art-unit average+14 pts
higher than about 76% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Jahangir Kabir has allowed 508 of 619 decided applications.

508 allowed
111 abandoned
Plus 23 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jahangir Kabir maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate stands at 82% across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed out of all decided applications in his record, excluding pending matters. The 82% rate reflects outcomes on applications that have received final action, whether allowed or abandoned.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes from a single art unit and presents an overall allowance rate. Aggregate figures describe the examiner's historical record and do not constitute predictions about any specific application. A pooled rate reflects past decisions across many applications but varies by application facts, claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific elements. Historical rates are correlational data 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 2439
642 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 76% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2439; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition619 decided applications

508 allowed
111 abandoned
Plus 23 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.9mo
disposed 39.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.9 mo, disposed 44.5 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 43
41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
59%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 94
96%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
40%

Interview benefit

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

without
60%
+32 pts
with
92%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 430 decided applications with an interview and 189 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jahangir Kabir

  • What is Jahangir Kabir's allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 82% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed out of all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in his public record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Jahangir Kabir's public record spans one art unit within TC 2400. This pooled profile aggregates all outcomes from that single art unit.
  • What does this allowance rate mean for my application?
    The 82% historical rate is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance depends on claim scope, prior art, specification support, and other facts unique to each case. Historical rates describe past record only.
◈ 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 Jahangir Kabir 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: 642 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