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

Examiner Kamal M Hossain

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 211 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
83%vs 65% weighted peer average+18 pts

Examiner Kamal M Hossain has allowed 175 of 211 decided applications.

175 allowed
36 abandoned
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (65%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2444 · 84%AU 2457 · 74%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kamal M Hossain maintains an 83% allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. Allowance rates across these art units range from 74% to 84%. The allowance rate reflects the percentage of applications decided (allowed or abandoned), excluding pending applications. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's activity across all assigned art units and represents the public record over the period reported.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The allowance rate shown here is a historical average across all art units under this examiner's purview and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may show different allowance rates. The pooled figure provides a broad view of past decisions but does not forecast results in any particular case.

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 2444
226 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

84%
higher than about 66% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition184 decided applications

155 allowed
29 abandoned
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 13.7mo
disposed 27.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
99%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
50%

Interview benefit

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

without
70%
+20 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 131 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2457
27 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

74%
higher than about 26% 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.

Disposition27 decided applications

20 allowed
7 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 13.2mo
disposed 28.3mo
0
36mo
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
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 73
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
67%

Based on 27 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kamal M Hossain

  • What is Kamal M Hossain's overall allowance rate?
    83% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    2 art units within TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 74% to 84% across the examiner's art units.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean?
    It is an aggregate of decided applications across all art units and does not predict outcomes in any specific application.
◈ 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 Kamal M Hossain 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: 253 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