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

Examiner Shawki Saif Ismail

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 99 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
59%vs 59% art-unit average±0 pts
higher than about 39% of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2455
AU avg 59%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2455; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 42 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 41 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Shawki Saif Ismail has allowed 58 of 99 decided applications.

58 allowed
41 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Shawki Saif Ismail holds a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning a single art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 59%. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending matters. The allowance rate is pooled across all art units within the examiner's portfolio and describes the historical distribution of outcomes on decided applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decided applications across all art units under the examiner's jurisdiction. The allowance rate of 59% describes past outcomes on decided matters and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures combine different art units and subject areas, so individual applications may experience different examination patterns than the aggregate reflects.

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 2455
99 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

59%
higher than about 39% of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2455
AU avg 59%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2455; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 42 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 41 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition99 decided applications

58 allowed
41 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 34.9mo
disposed 60.5mo
0
72mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 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 38
33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
50%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%

Interview benefit

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

without
25%
+60 pts
with
85%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 44 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shawki Saif Ismail

  • What is Examiner Ismail's overall allowance rate?
    59% across dozens of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The rate describes past outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • What subject matter does this examiner cover?
    Technology Center 2400, as shown in the examiner's technology-center designation.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Shawki Saif Ismail 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: 99 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