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

Examiner Tanim M Hossain

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 60 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
37%vs 60% art-unit average23 pts
higher than about 16% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445
AU avg 60%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Tanim M Hossain has allowed 22 of 60 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Tanim M Hossain holds a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. His pooled allowance rate—calculated over dozens of decided applications—is 37 percent. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in his record. The allowance rate is the ratio of grants to all final dispositions, excluding pending applications. The public data reflects historical outcomes only and does not address any particular pending case.

How to read these numbers.

This record pools decisions across all of the examiner's assigned art units into a single allowance-rate figure. An aggregate rate describes past outcomes across multiple art areas and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled rates reflect the examiner's historical pattern but do not account for variation by art unit, applicant, claim complexity, or any other case-specific factor. The data is correlational and descriptive only.

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 2445
60 APPS · 37% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

37%
higher than about 16% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445
AU avg 60%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2445; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition60 decided applications

22 allowed
38 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39mo
disposed 59.7mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.6 mo, disposed 47.1 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 40
100%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
25%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Tanim M Hossain

  • What is Tanim M Hossain's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 37 percent, calculated across dozens of decided applications. This is the share of allowed applications among all decided (allowed and abandoned) cases in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Tanim M Hossain's public record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application. It describes past decided cases but does not account for individual claim language, prior art, or other application-specific factors.
  • How large is the sample size for this record?
    The pooled allowance rate is based on dozens of decided applications across all of the examiner's 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Tanim M Hossain 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: 60 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