LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DIPAKKUMAR B GANDHI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Dipakkumar B Gandhi

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 887 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2023
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Dipakkumar B Gandhi has allowed 732 of 887 decided applications (83%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

83% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 78%AU 2111 · 92%AU 2138 · 79%AU 2133 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Dipakkumar B Gandhi maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning 4 art units. Across 887 disposed applications, 732 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 83%. The allowance rate ranges from 78% to 92% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by technology area within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's activity across distinct subject-matter groups and does not represent performance on any single application or art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is a pool—a sum of outcomes across 4 separate art units within TC 2100. The 83% allowance rate describes past dispositions on 887 decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance rates vary by art unit (78% to 92%), so this aggregate figure masks that variation. A pooled record shows breadth of experience but does not forecast results in any particular technology area or 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 2117
486 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION377 / 109 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.6 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)43%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 198 decided applications with an interview and 288 without.

ART UNIT 2111
262 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE
92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION242 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.6 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.9 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness66%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 138 decided applications with an interview and 124 without.

ART UNIT 2138
71 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

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

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION56 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.8 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW64%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%-22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 49 without.

ART UNIT 2133
68 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

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

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION57 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.2 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.7 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 51 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Dipakkumar B Gandhi

  • What is Dipakkumar B Gandhi's overall allowance rate?
    83% of 887 disposed applications were allowed. This figure pools outcomes across 4 art units and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2111, 2117, 2133, 2138) within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 78% to 92% across the examiner's art units. The pooled 83% rate is an aggregate and does not apply uniformly to all areas.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    It describes the examiner's historical outcomes across all 4 art units combined. It is not a prediction of any particular case's outcome and does not account for individual application circumstances.
◈ 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 Dipakkumar B Gandhi 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: 887 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