LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/MOHAMMAD YOU A MIAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mohammad You A Mian

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 290 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
68%vs 64% weighted peer average+4 pts

Examiner Mohammad You A Mian has allowed 196 of 290 decided applications.

196 allowed
94 abandoned
Plus 36 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (64%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2448 · 61%AU 2457 · 80%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mohammad You A Mian holds a public record in Technology Center 2400 across 2 art units. His pooled allowance rate is 68% of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), spanning hundreds of decided applications. The allowance rate ranges from 61% to 80% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record by subject-matter area within TC 2400. This pooled figure represents the aggregate historical record and does not indicate the outcome of any particular application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units, masking unit-specific variation. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions and is historical data only—not a forecast for any single case. The range shown (61% to 80%) indicates that allowance rates differ by art unit; the pooled 68% is a weighted average. Applicants may consult art-unit–specific pages to see individual unit records.

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 2448
194 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

61%
higher than about 47% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448
AU avg 56%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2448; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition194 decided applications

119 allowed
75 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.8mo
disposed 42.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 46.1 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 33
35%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
90%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
99%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
65%

Interview benefit

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

without
41%
+29 pts
with
70%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 138 decided applications with an interview and 56 without.

ART UNIT 2457
132 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

80%
higher than about 54% 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.

Disposition96 decided applications

77 allowed
19 abandoned
Plus 36 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.3mo
disposed 33.6mo
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
34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 73
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
61%

Interview benefit

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

without
54%
+36 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mohammad You A Mian

  • What is Mohammad You A Mian's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 68% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This is the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned (pending applications excluded).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • Do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 61% to 80% across the examiner's art units, indicating that the record varies by subject-matter area.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific 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.

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 Mohammad You A Mian 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: 326 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