LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JAGDISH J PANDYA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jagdish J Pandya

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 63 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Jagdish J Pandya has allowed 38 of 63 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

60% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 66%AU 2169 · 50%AU 2154 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jagdish J Pandya maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 63 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 60%, based on 38 allowed and 25 abandoned applications. This rate reflects the examiner's historical record in the technology center and does not represent a prediction for any specific application. The pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and art-unit groupings within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units into a single allowance rate. This aggregate figure describes past dispositions and is not a forecast of any particular application's outcome. Allowance rate is computed from decided applications only (allowed plus abandoned), excluding pending cases. Separate pages detail performance within individual art units; the pooled view offers a broad overview of the examiner's historical record in the technology center.

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 2165
41 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION27 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.6 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.5 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness23%

Based on 41 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2169
18 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION9 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.4 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.8 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%

Based on 18 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2154
4 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION2 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.2 moart unit avg 27.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 41.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%

Based on 4 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jagdish J Pandya

  • What is Jagdish J Pandya's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 60%, calculated from 63 disposed applications (38 allowed, 25 abandoned). This is a historical statistic and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 3 art units (2154, 2165, 2169) within Technology Center 2100. The pooled allowance rate aggregates dispositions across all three art units.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate represent?
    The pooled rate combines outcomes from all art units under one examiner into a single historical figure. It describes past decisions and does not indicate the outcome of any pending or future application.
  • Does this examiner handle only software and computer architecture?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). This is the official technology-center descriptor for the examiner's assigned subject matter.
◈ 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 Jagdish J Pandya 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: 63 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