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

Examiner Gautam Sain

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 471 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 Gautam Sain has allowed 300 of 471 decided applications (64%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

64% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2135 · 69%AU 2176 · 24%AU 2185 · 25%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Gautam Sain maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 471 disposed applications, 300 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 64%. The examiner's record spans multiple art units (2135, 2176, 2185), with allowance rates ranging from 24% to 69% across these units. This range reflects variation in outcomes by art unit. The pooled figure of 64% represents the aggregate allowance rate across all art units combined, aggregating 516 total applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates outcomes across multiple distinct art units, each with its own subject matter and examination patterns. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions on disposed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across individual art units may reflect differences in subject matter, applicant behavior, or other non-examiner factors. The aggregate figure masks this variation; examination outcomes in any particular art unit may differ materially from the pooled rate.

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 2135
459 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

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

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION286 / 128 / 45allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.2 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.8 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW52%+24 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 302 decided applications with an interview and 112 without.

ART UNIT 2176
41 APPS · 24% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

24% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION10 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.8 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.2 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
ART UNIT 2185
16 APPS · 25% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
25% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION4 / 12 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.2 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.5 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)31%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%

Based on 16 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Gautam Sain

  • What is Gautam Sain's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 64%, based on 300 allowed applications out of 471 disposed applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 3 art units (2135, 2176, 2185) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 24% to 69% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation by art unit.
  • What does the pooled rate represent?
    The pooled 64% rate aggregates all decisions across the 3 art units combined and is not a prediction of 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 Gautam Sain 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: 516 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