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

Examiner Kabir U Jahangir

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 515 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
89%vs 83% art-unit average+6 pts
higher than about 62% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Kabir U Jahangir has allowed 456 of 515 decided applications.

456 allowed
Plus 32 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kabir U Jahangir maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning a single art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 89%, meaning that 89% of applications that were decided (either allowed or abandoned) received allowance. This rate represents the examiner's historical record on applications that reached a final disposition. The figure is based on the pooled data across all art units in which this examiner has decided applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units. The allowance rate describes what occurred in the past and is a summary of final outcomes on applications that received a decision. Aggregate figures reflect historical patterns but are not predictions about any specific application's outcome. Different art units handle different subject matter, and application-specific variables influence individual results independently of aggregate statistics.

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 2464
547 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 62% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition515 decided applications

456 allowed
Plus 32 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.1mo
disposed 30.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.8 mo, disposed 35.7 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
14%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
52%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
36%

Interview benefit

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

without
86%
+8 pts
with
94%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 163 decided applications with an interview and 352 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kabir U Jahangir

  • What is Kabir U Jahangir's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 89% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) that resulted in allowance.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 1 art unit within TC 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of applications that received final allowance among all applications that were decided (allowed or abandoned). Pending applications are excluded. The rate describes the historical record and is not a prediction for any individual application.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    Pooled allowance rates are historical aggregates and are not predictions of outcomes on specific applications. Individual application outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, examination history, 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Kabir U Jahangir 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: 547 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