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

Examiner Noura Zoubair

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 432 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
77%vs 76% art-unit average+1 pt
higher than about 37% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 41 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Noura Zoubair has allowed 334 of 432 decided applications.

334 allowed
98 abandoned
Plus 28 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Noura Zoubair maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 spanning one art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 77%. This rate reflects the share of applications in the examiner's decided record that were allowed; it does not include pending applications and is calculated only from the pool of applications that have been allowed or abandoned. The record presented here is pooled across all art units and describes the examiner's historical disposition of applications completed to date.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across one art unit in TC 2400. Pooled figures describe past decisions on completed applications and serve as a historical reference. An allowance rate represents the proportion of decided cases that resulted in allowance and does not constitute a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units within the technology center may exhibit different profiles; refer to the per-art-unit breakdown for subject-specific detail.

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 2434
460 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

77%
higher than about 37% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 41 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition432 decided applications

334 allowed
98 abandoned
Plus 28 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.5mo
disposed 33mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.5 mo, disposed 41.8 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
33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
51%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
95%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
65%

Interview benefit

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

without
28%
+63 pts
with
91%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 337 decided applications with an interview and 95 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Noura Zoubair

  • What is Noura Zoubair's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 77%, measured across hundreds of decided applications pooled from all art units. This represents the percentage of allowed applications within the decided (allowed and abandoned) population.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Noura Zoubair's record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me about my application?
    The pooled rate is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, and other application-specific facts. For art-unit-specific data, consult the per-unit section.
  • How large is the sample underlying this record?
    The allowance rate is based on hundreds of decided applications. The exact count appears in the statistics boxes on this page.
◈ 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 Noura Zoubair 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: 460 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