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

Examiner Shehab A Alawdi

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 33 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 66% weighted peer average+16 pts

Examiner Shehab A Alawdi has allowed 27 of 33 decided applications.

27 allowed
6 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (66%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2466 · 80%AU 2475 · 88%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Shehab A Alawdi maintains a public record across 2 art units within Technology Center 2400, with an allowance rate of 82% across dozens of decided applications. This rate reflects the proportion of applications in the decided category (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The 82% figure represents the examiner's pooled allowance rate across both art units and describes the historical record of decided cases. The examiner's record spans two distinct art units, meaning applications are distributed across different subject-matter areas within the technology center.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units into a single overall figure. The 82% allowance rate shown here is a composite of decided applications from both art units combined and reflects past outcomes only. Aggregate statistics describe what has occurred historically and are not predictions about any individual application's outcome. Art-unit-specific figures are available separately and may differ materially from the pooled result.

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 2466
68 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

80%
higher than about 60% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2466
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2466; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition25 decided applications

20 allowed
5 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 28.4mo
disposed 46.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.9 mo, disposed 37.8 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 22
25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
96%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
9%
ART UNIT 2475
8 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 65% of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2475
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2475; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition8 decided applications

7 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.9mo
disposed 40.4mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.6 mo, disposed 38.1 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 22
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

Based on 8 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shehab A Alawdi

  • What is Examiner Alawdi's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 82%, calculated as the share of allowed applications within all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across both art units, excluding pending cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Alawdi works across 2 art units (2466 and 2475) within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does this allowance rate mean for my application?
    This rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual results depend on the application's merits, art unit assignment, and examination details.
  • How large is the sample behind this rate?
    The 82% rate is based on dozens of decided applications pooled across both art units.
◈ 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.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree 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 Shehab A Alawdi 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: 76 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