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

Examiner Maryam Nmn Emadi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 47 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
83%vs 70% art-unit average+13 pts
higher than about 69% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Maryam Nmn Emadi has allowed 39 of 47 decided applications.

39 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Maryam Nmn Emadi has a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning a single art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 83%. This rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending applications. The allowance rate of 83% represents the examiner's historical record on decided cases and is a descriptive statistic of past outcomes only.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all of the examiner's decided applications across her art unit in TC 2400. The overall allowance rate of 83% describes the examiner's past decisions and does not constitute a prediction about any individual application. Pooled figures reflect historical patterns and variation across different applications; they are correlational summaries, not causal indicators of how any specific case will be examined or decided.

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 2478
90 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 69% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition47 decided applications

39 allowed
8 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.7mo
disposed 36.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 42.7 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 25
9%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
71%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
23%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Maryam Nmn Emadi

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 83%, measured across dozens of decided applications in TC 2400. This is the percentage of applications allowed among all decided cases (allowed plus abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a record in 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate tell me about my application?
    The allowance rate is a historical descriptor of the examiner's past decisions and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Past rates do not determine future results.
  • Does a high allowance rate mean faster prosecution?
    No. Allowance rate measures only the percentage of applications allowed versus abandoned, not the speed or timeline of examination. The two are separate metrics.
◈ 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 Maryam Nmn Emadi 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: 90 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