LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BHARAT BAROT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Bharat Barot

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 217 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
88%vs 56% weighted peer average+32 pts

Examiner Bharat Barot has allowed 192 of 217 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed192abandoned25pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (56%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2155 · 88%AU 2154 · 89%AU 2151 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Bharat Barot maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units: 2151, 2154, and 2155. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 88%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across all art units in the examiner's record. The allowance rate describes historical outcomes and does not predict results on any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record pools applications across multiple art units within TC 2100, aggregating diverse subject matter into a single allowance percentage. An aggregate figure reflects the examiner's past outcomes across different technical areas and application types. The pooled rate characterizes the overall record but is not a prediction for any individual case. Applicants may find per-art-unit detail in a separate section of this page.

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 2155
197 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION174 / 23 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.5 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.7 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW87%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 18 decided applications with an interview and 179 without.

ART UNIT 2154
19 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION17 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION6.1 moart unit avg 27.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY15.3 moart unit avg 41.9 mo
ART UNIT 2151
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION4.4 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY20 moart unit avg 44.1 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Bharat Barot

  • What is Examiner Barot's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 88%, measured as a share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across all art units in the public record.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans three art units: 2151, 2154, and 2155, all within TC 2100.
  • How many applications are included in this statistic?
    The allowance rate of 88% is based on hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • Does an 88% allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past outcomes and are not predictions of results on any specific application.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Bharat Barot 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 July 14, 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: 217 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