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

Examiner Saad A Waqas

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 597 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
77%vs 62% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner Saad A Waqas has allowed 457 of 597 decided applications.

457 allowed
140 abandoned
Plus 34 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (62%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2468 · 83%AU 2478 · 54%AU 2446 · 23%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Saad A Waqas maintains a pooled allowance rate of 77% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 3 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 23% to 83% across these art units, reflecting variation in allowance outcomes by subject matter within the technology center. This pooled figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications—both allowed and abandoned—with pending applications excluded from the calculation.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units within TC 2400. The pooled allowance rate describes his historical output across those units combined and does not constitute a prediction about any specific application. Allowance rates vary by art unit and depend on individual application facts, claim scope, prior art, and examination history. The pooled figure illustrates the examiner's overall record in this technology center.

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.3 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 2468
539 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 70% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition505 decided applications

417 allowed
88 abandoned
Plus 34 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.7mo
disposed 36.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.4 mo, disposed 41.5 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 21
22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
94%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
38%

Interview benefit

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

without
60%
+29 pts
with
89%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 391 decided applications with an interview and 114 without.

ART UNIT 2478
61 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

54%
higher than about 14% 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.

Disposition61 decided applications

33 allowed
28 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 34.6mo
disposed 55.4mo
0
60mo
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
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
71%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
46%
+34 pts
with
80%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2446
31 APPS · 23% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

23%
higher than about 9% of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition31 decided applications

7 allowed
24 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 35mo
disposed 47.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26 mo, disposed 41.9 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Saad A Waqas

  • What is the overall allowance rate for Saad A Waqas?
    77% of his decided applications across all art units were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The record covers 3 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 23% to 83% across these art units, showing variation by subject matter.
  • What does this pooled rate mean for my application?
    The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record 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.

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 Saad A Waqas 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: 631 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