LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/AKASH SAXENA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Akash Saxena

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 617 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Akash Saxena has allowed 290 of 617 decided applications (47%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

47% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2128 · 40%AU 2188 · 71%AU 2147 · 47%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Patent Examiner Akash Saxena has a public record spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 617 disposed applications, his allowance rate stands at 47%. This rate reflects applications decided—both allowed and abandoned—and excludes pending matters. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 40% to 71% across his art units, reflecting variation in the disposition patterns within this technology center. The pooled figure of 47% represents an aggregate across all three art units and describes the historical record.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall snapshot rather than art-unit-specific detail. The allowance rate and range shown here describe past dispositions and do not constitute a prediction for any particular application. Individual art units may show different allowance patterns; this pooled view offers context on the examiner's overall history within TC 2100. Detailed per-art-unit records are available separately.

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 →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by 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 2128
395 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.

40% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION157 / 238 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.5 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.4 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW58%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW29%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 146 decided applications with an interview and 249 without.

ART UNIT 2188
163 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION85 / 34 / 44allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.8 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.6 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness74%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 77 decided applications with an interview and 42 without.

ART UNIT 2147
103 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

47% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 44%
DISPOSITION48 / 55 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.6 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.5 moart unit avg 46.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility74% · art unit 74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW57%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW26%+31 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 69 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Akash Saxena

  • What is Examiner Saxena's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 47% across 617 disposed applications, pooled across all three art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Saxena work in?
    Examiner Saxena has a public record spanning three art units within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 40% to 71% across his art units, reflecting variation within the technology center.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. These figures describe the historical record and are not a prediction of any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 Akash Saxena has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 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: 661 applications.

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