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

Examiner Sher A Khan

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 490 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
90%vs 84% art-unit average+6 pts
higher than about 56% 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.

Examiner Sher A Khan has allowed 441 of 490 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Sher A Khan maintains a pooled record across 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate stands at 90%. This rate represents the share of applications in the examiner's decided pool—those allowed or abandoned—over the full span of their public record. The record reflects outcomes on applications in that technology center over the time period captured by USPTO data.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates dispositions across all art units assigned to an examiner. The allowance rate reflects past outcomes on decided applications and describes that historical record only. It is not a prediction of outcomes on any specific pending application. Aggregate figures mask variation by art unit or time period. For detailed breakdowns by individual art unit, refer to the per-unit sections of this examiner's profile.

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 2497
512 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

90%
higher than about 56% 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.

Disposition490 decided applications

441 allowed
Plus 22 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.5mo
disposed 28.9mo
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
44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
80%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
58%

Interview benefit

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

without
76%
+21 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 329 decided applications with an interview and 161 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sher A Khan

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 90%, calculated as allowed and abandoned applications pooled across all art units, expressed as a share of all decided applications in the examiner's public record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    This examiner's record spans 1 art unit.
  • Does the overall allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific pending application. Outcomes depend on application-specific facts, claim language, and examination history.
  • Why is the allowance rate expressed only as a percentage?
    The public record reports the allowance rate as a percentage of decided applications. Application counts appear in the statistics boxes on this page; the narrative describes the rate and record without repeating those counts.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Sher A Khan 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: 512 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