Examiner Indranil Chowdhury has allowed 236 of 251 decided applications (94%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Indranil Chowdhury maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 251 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 236 and abandoned 15, for an overall allowance rate of 94%. The examiner works within a single art unit (2114). This pooled record reflects the examiner's historical dispositions in TC 2100 and does not constitute a prediction for any future application.
A pooled record aggregates all applications and outcomes across an examiner's assigned art units, presenting a single allowance rate that blends different subject areas within TC 2100. The rate reported here—94% of decided applications—describes the examiner's past record only. It is not a prediction of the outcome in any specific case, nor does it account for application-specific facts, claim scope, prior art, or prosecution history.
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 error detection, correction, and monitoring.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 171 decided applications with an interview and 80 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Indranil Chowdhury 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: 251 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