LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DAYWAYSHWAR D MISIR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Daywayshwar D Misir

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 648 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 Daywayshwar D Misir has allowed 559 of 648 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

86% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2127 · 86%AU 2129 · 88%AU 2122 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Daywayshwar D Misir maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 648 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 86%, with a range of 84% to 88% across these art units. Of the 671 total applications in the record, 559 were allowed and 89 were abandoned. The allowance rate reflects only decided applications and excludes any pending matters from the denominator.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decisions across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 86% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all three units combined and is a statistical summary of past dispositions, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; the range (84% to 88%) reflects that variation. Aggregate figures do not forecast results in any particular 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 →

// 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 2127
285 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

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

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION225 / 37 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.2 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility71% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW38%+56 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 225 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2129
217 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

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

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION192 / 25 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.4 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.6 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness73% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW71%+26 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 144 decided applications with an interview and 73 without.

ART UNIT 2122
169 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

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

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION142 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.8 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.8 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)74%
§103 — Obviousness70% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW35%+58 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 143 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Daywayshwar D Misir

  • What is Daywayshwar D Misir's allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 86% across 648 decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner maintains a record across 3 art units in TC 2100: 2122, 2127, and 2129.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 84% to 88% across the examiner's art units. This pooled figure (86%) is an aggregate and does not represent any single art unit.
◈ 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 Daywayshwar D Misir 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: 671 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