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

Examiner Arvind Talukdar

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 631 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 Arvind Talukdar has allowed 518 of 631 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2132 · 84%AU 2189 · 72%AU 2182 · 73%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Arvind Talukdar maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 631 disposed applications, 518 were allowed, yielding an 82% allowance rate. The examiner's record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, with allowance rates ranging from 72% to 84% across these units. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across different subject areas and does not represent a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines statistics across multiple art units into a single aggregate. The 82% allowance rate reflects historical dispositions across all units the examiner covers in TC 2100. Aggregate figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions of future applications. Rates vary by art unit; the range (72% to 84%) reflects this variation. Individual art-unit records, where available, provide narrower subject-matter context.

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 2132
558 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION429 / 79 / 50allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.5 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.8 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%-4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 192 decided applications with an interview and 316 without.

ART UNIT 2189
86 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION62 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness9%
ART UNIT 2182
37 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION27 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.9 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)44%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 37 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Arvind Talukdar

  • What is Examiner Talukdar's overall allowance rate?
    Across all art units, the allowance rate is 82%, based on 631 disposed applications (518 allowed, 113 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Talukdar has a substantial record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 72% to 84%, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject area within TC 2100.
  • Is this allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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 Arvind Talukdar 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: 681 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