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

Examiner Shahriar Zarrineh

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 553 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
82%vs 76% weighted peer average+6 pts

Examiner Shahriar Zarrineh has allowed 456 of 553 decided applications.

456 allowed
97 abandoned
Plus 75 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (76%) 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 2496 · 76%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Shahriar Zarrineh maintains an overall allowance rate of 82% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. His record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 76% to 87% across these art units, reflecting variation in the decided application outcomes within his portfolio. This pooled figure represents the share of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending matters. The 82% rate is a historical aggregate that describes past dispositions.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates allowance data across multiple art units within Technology Center 2400. The overall 82% figure combines outcomes from different subject areas and cannot be treated as a prediction for any individual application. Pooled statistics describe past performance and reflect the mix of art-unit records; they do not indicate the outcome of a specific case or convey causal information about examination practices.

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
315 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

87%
higher than about 37% 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.

Disposition315 decided applications

275 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 16.1mo
disposed 29.5mo
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
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
87%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
58%

Interview benefit

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

without
86%
+3 pts
with
89%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 169 decided applications with an interview and 146 without.

ART UNIT 2496
313 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 50% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496
AU avg 67%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition238 decided applications

181 allowed
57 abandoned
Plus 75 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.3mo
disposed 35.3mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.6 mo, disposed 36.2 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
43%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 91
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
65%

Interview benefit

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

without
80%
8 pts
with
72%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 118 decided applications with an interview and 120 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shahriar Zarrineh

  • What is Shahriar Zarrineh's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 82% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400, representing the share of allowed and abandoned applications in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 76% to 87% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean?
    The 82% figure is an aggregate of decided applications across all of the examiner's art units. It describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Shahriar Zarrineh 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: 628 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