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

Examiner Nasser Moazzami Goodarzi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 69 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
42%vs 64% weighted peer average22 pts

Examiner Nasser Moazzami Goodarzi has allowed 29 of 69 decided applications.

29 allowed
40 abandoned
Plus 8 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 2426 · 52%AU 2436 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Nasser Moazzami Goodarzi maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning 2 art units. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 42%. This figure reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided matters (allowed and abandoned combined); pending applications are excluded from this calculation. The allowance rate represents the examiner's pooled historical record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application under examination.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing a single allowance rate that represents overall historical performance. This aggregate figure describes what occurred in past applications and is not a prediction about any individual case. Understanding a pooled record requires recognizing that it combines different subject areas and examination patterns. The allowance rate is descriptive of past outcomes only.

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 2426
64 APPS · 52% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

52%
higher than about 26% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2426
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2426; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition56 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.7mo
disposed 41.8mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.8 mo, disposed 39 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 29
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
83%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
62%

Interview benefit

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

without
49%
+9 pts
with
58%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 19 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2436
13 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition13 decided applications

13 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 36.2mo
disposed 58.1mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 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 48
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
50%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Nasser Moazzami Goodarzi

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 42% across dozens of decided applications, reflecting the share of applications allowed among all decided matters in the examiner's pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. It describes what occurred in past decided cases, not what will occur in any individual pending application.
  • What does 'decided applications' mean?
    Decided applications include those that were allowed and those that were abandoned. Pending applications—those still under examination—are excluded from the allowance-rate calculation.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Nasser Moazzami Goodarzi 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: 77 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