LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/MAYASA A. SHAAWAT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mayasa A. Shaawat

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 182 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
88%vs 64% art-unit average+24 pts
higher than about 90% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Mayasa A. Shaawat has allowed 160 of 182 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mayasa A. Shaawat's public record in Technology Center 2400 spans one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 88%. This figure represents the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that issued as allowances. The allowance rate is pooled across all art units in the examiner's record and reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition. This statistic describes the examiner's historical record and does not characterize any individual application's path or outcome.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates results across all of the examiner's art units in TC 2400. The allowance rate reflects past decided applications and describes the examiner's historical record only. Pooled figures represent an average across different art units and subject matter areas within the technology center, and do not constitute a prediction about any specific pending application. Individual art-unit records may differ from the pooled figure.

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 2433
221 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 90% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition182 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.2mo
disposed 33.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.2 mo, disposed 41.6 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
29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
61%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
96%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
76%
+21 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 104 decided applications with an interview and 78 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mayasa A. Shaawat

  • What is Mayasa A. Shaawat's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 88%, representing the share of decided (allowed and abandoned) applications that were allowed across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans one art unit in TC 2400. The pooled figures aggregate the examiner's outcomes across all art units.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record and does not constitute a prediction of any specific pending application's outcome. Individual applications may have different results.
◈ 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 Mayasa A. Shaawat 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: 221 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