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

Examiner Mahmudul Hasan

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 71 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
59%vs 76% art-unit average17 pts
higher than about 12% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Mahmudul Hasan has allowed 42 of 71 decided applications.

42 allowed
29 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mahmudul Hasan maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Over dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 59%. This rate reflects the share of applications in the decided pool (allowed and abandoned applications combined) and excludes pending cases. The allowance rate is based on the examiner's aggregate record and does not forecast the outcome of any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units. The 59% allowance rate describes past dispositions and is a statistical summary of closed cases only—pending applications are not included. Aggregate figures characterize the examiner's historical record but are not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Each application turns on its own merits and facts.

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 2411
71 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

59%
higher than about 12% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition71 decided applications

42 allowed
29 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.4mo
disposed 36.2mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21 mo, disposed 38.4 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 26
10%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
13%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
64%

Interview benefit

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

without
45%
+43 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 24 decided applications with an interview and 47 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mahmudul Hasan

  • What is Mahmudul Hasan's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 59% across dozens of decided applications, pooled across all art units. This reflects the share of allowed and abandoned applications in the decided set and does not include pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Mahmudul Hasan's public record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me?
    The pooled rate summarizes the examiner's historical dispositions across all art units combined. It is a factual description of past decided cases and is not a prediction of any single application's outcome.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Mahmudul Hasan 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: 71 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