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

Examiner Yassin Alata

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 902 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
69%vs 55% weighted peer average+14 pts

Examiner Yassin Alata has allowed 620 of 902 decided applications.

620 allowed
282 abandoned
Plus 67 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (55%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2426 · 82%AU 2427 · 43%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Yassin Alata maintains a pooled allowance rate of 69% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. Allowance rates across these art units range from 43% to 82%, reflecting variation in the decisions issued within each unit's subject matter. This pooled figure represents all allowed and abandoned applications decided by the examiner and does not include pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical pattern of allowances and abandonments and is not a prediction of the outcome in any specific application. The range shown reflects differences in allowance rates among individual art units; the overall pooled rate does not apply uniformly to each unit.

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 2426
661 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 78% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2426
AU avg 62%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2426; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition594 decided applications

488 allowed
106 abandoned
Plus 67 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 12.5mo
disposed 27.7mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.8 mo, disposed 39 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 29
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
48%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
66%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

Interview benefit

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

without
82%
±0 pts
with
82%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 180 decided applications with an interview and 414 without.

ART UNIT 2427
308 APPS · 43% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

43%
higher than 10 of the 17 examiners with published rates in art unit 2427
AU avg 41%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 17 examiners with published rates in art unit 2427; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition308 decided applications

132 allowed
176 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.2mo
disposed 49.9mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 51 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 27
33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
28%

Interview benefit

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

without
32%
+32 pts
with
64%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 104 decided applications with an interview and 204 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Yassin Alata

  • What is Examiner Alata's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 69% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does Examiner Alata examine in?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 43% to 82% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in decisions by art unit.
  • Does this allowance rate apply to my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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.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 Yassin Alata 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: 969 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