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

Examiner Sakinah W Taylor

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 326 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
87%vs 84% weighted peer average+3 pts

Examiner Sakinah W Taylor has allowed 284 of 326 decided applications.

284 allowed
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (84%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2497 · 87%AU 2431 · 100%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Sakinah W Taylor maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 87%. This figure reflects the percentage of applications in the decided category—those marked allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. The allowance rate is pooled across all art units under this examiner's jurisdiction and represents the examiner's historical record on decided matters.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate across the examiner's decided applications. The 87% figure describes the past distribution of outcomes (allowed and abandoned applications) and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Pooled rates mask variation across individual art units; detailed per-art-unit records appear separately. These statistics are historical records 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 2497
325 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

87%
higher than about 33% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497
AU avg 84%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 28 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 27 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition325 decided applications

283 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.2mo
disposed 32.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.1 mo, disposed 31.7 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 43
54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
86%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
99%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
58%

Interview benefit

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

without
71%
+23 pts
with
94%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 227 decided applications with an interview and 98 without.

ART UNIT 2431
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than about 72% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition1 decided applications

1 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 8.3mo
disposed 10.6mo
0
12mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 35.1 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sakinah W Taylor

  • What is Sakinah W Taylor's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 87% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units. This represents the percentage of applications marked allowed or abandoned, excluding pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate apply to my specific application?
    No. The 87% figure describes the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may have different rates; see the per-art-unit detail for comparison.
  • What does 'decided applications' mean?
    Decided applications are those marked allowed or abandoned. Pending applications are excluded from this calculation. The allowance rate is the percentage of allowed applications within the decided category.
◈ 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.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 Sakinah W Taylor 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