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

Examiner Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 40 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
70%vs 69% art-unit average+1 pt
higher than about 45% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 39 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra has allowed 28 of 40 decided applications.

28 allowed
12 abandoned
Plus 45 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning 1 art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, his allowance rate is 70%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across his art unit. The allowance rate is a historical snapshot of his record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates allowance data across all of an examiner's art units, producing a single overall figure. This aggregate describes past dispositions only and reflects outcomes across potentially varied subject matter within the technology center. Aggregate statistics are not predictions of outcomes for individual applications and do not account for application-specific factors, claim scope, or prosecution history.

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 2486
85 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

70%
higher than about 45% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 39 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition40 decided applications

28 allowed
12 abandoned
Plus 45 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.4mo
disposed 31.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.8 mo, disposed 36.3 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 21
14%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
82%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
95%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
23%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra

  • What is Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra's allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 70% across dozens of decided applications, pooled across all his art units. This is the percentage of allowed applications among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    His public record covers 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict outcomes on my application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual results depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution-specific circumstances.
◈ 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 Mahmoud Kamal Abouzahra 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: 85 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