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

Examiner Samira Monshi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 563 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
82%vs 72% art-unit average+10 pts
higher than about 68% of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Samira Monshi has allowed 461 of 563 decided applications.

461 allowed
102 abandoned
Plus 30 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Samira Monshi maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Her pooled allowance rate is 82% across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the share of applications that issued as allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in her record. The allowance rate is calculated from her complete set of decided applications and does not include pending cases. This aggregate record spans a single art unit and reflects her historical examination outcomes.

How to read these numbers.

This profile presents pooled data aggregated across all of the examiner's art units. The allowance rate and application counts shown here reflect past examination outcomes combined across those units and describe the historical record only. Aggregate figures do not predict the outcome of any specific application, nor do they account for variations in individual art units, application complexity, or prosecution history. Pooled statistics serve as a reference for understanding an examiner's overall record.

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 2422
593 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 68% of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422
AU avg 72%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 22 examiners with published rates in art unit 2422; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition563 decided applications

461 allowed
102 abandoned
Plus 30 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 12.6mo
disposed 28.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.8 mo, disposed 32.3 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 18
16%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
76%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 76
65%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
27%

Interview benefit

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

without
81%
+4 pts
with
85%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 137 decided applications with an interview and 426 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Samira Monshi

  • What is Samira Monshi's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 82% across hundreds of decided applications. This represents the percentage of allowed applications among all decided (allowed and abandoned) cases in her pooled record.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans one art unit. This pooled profile aggregates the examiner's examination outcomes across that single unit.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application. Individual results depend on claim scope, prior art, examiner interviews, and many other case-specific factors.
  • What does 'decided applications' mean?
    Decided applications are those that have been allowed or abandoned. Pending applications 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Samira Monshi 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: 593 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