Examiner Anil K Bhargava has allowed 568 of 660 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Anil K Bhargava maintains a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 660 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 86%. The allowance rate ranges from 83% to 95% across these art units. A total of 568 applications have been allowed and 92 abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units and does not reflect performance in any single art unit or predict outcomes in specific applications.
This pooled record combines the examiner's decisions across 5 different art units in TC 2100. The aggregate allowance rate of 86% describes historical disposition across all units combined and reflects past outcomes only. Allowance rates vary by art unit, ranging from 83% to 95%. Pooled figures are not predictions of any specific application's outcome and do not isolate performance in a particular technology area or art 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 →
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 260 decided applications with an interview and 136 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 83 decided applications with an interview and 47 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 78 decided applications with an interview and 22 without.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Anil K Bhargava 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: 680 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