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

Examiner Shukri Abdallah Taha

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,017 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
85%vs 70% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner Shukri Abdallah Taha has allowed 866 of 1,017 decided applications.

866 allowed
151 abandoned
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (70%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2478 · 87%AU 2446 · 40%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Shukri Abdallah Taha maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400, spanning more than a thousand decided applications. The pooled allowance rate is 85%, meaning that of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), 85% resulted in allowance. The allowance rate ranges from 40% to 87% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by art-unit classification. This pooled figure represents the examiner's historical record and does not constitute a prediction regarding any specific pending application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, creating a single composite allowance rate. That aggregate figure describes past outcomes across the examiner's entire caseload and is historical in nature. The range (40% to 87%) reflects the breadth of art-unit-specific rates underlying the pool. Pooled statistics describe the examiner's record as a whole and are not predictions of disposition in any individual case.

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 2478
1,012 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

87%
higher than about 83% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2478; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 36 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition969 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.3mo
disposed 32.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.7 mo, disposed 42.7 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 25
23%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
36%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
22%

Interview benefit

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

without
82%
+14 pts
with
96%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 365 decided applications with an interview and 604 without.

ART UNIT 2446
48 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

40%
higher than about 23% of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 43 examiners with published rates in art unit 2446; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition48 decided applications

19 allowed
29 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 38mo
disposed 54.5mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26 mo, disposed 41.9 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shukri Abdallah Taha

  • What is the overall allowance rate for Examiner Taha?
    The pooled allowance rate across all decided applications is 85%.
  • How many art units does this examiner work across?
    The record spans 2 art units (2446 and 2478) in TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 40% to 87% across the examiner's art units.
  • Is this pooled rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical outcomes across more than a thousand decided applications and is not a prediction for any specific pending case.
◈ 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 Shukri Abdallah Taha 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: 1,060 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