This examiner has a small public record (37applications), so we don't publish a record summary — small samples over-state patterns. The per-art-unit figures below are shown for completeness.
Examiner Bhaskar Kakarla maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's pooled record spans one art unit and covers 37 total applications. No applications have been allowed, abandoned, or disposed. Because no applications have been decided, no allowance rate can be calculated. The public record reflects filings within TC 2100 and does not include pending applications in the rate computation.
A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to an examiner. The figures describe the historical record and are not predictions about any specific application. An allowance rate is computed only from decided applications (allowed plus abandoned); pending applications are excluded from that calculation. Aggregate statistics reflect past dispositions and offer context for an examiner's practice, but they do not forecast outcomes in any individual case.
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 control or regulating systems.
Based on 37 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Bhaskar Kakarla 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: 37 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