Examiner Jigneshkumar C Patel has allowed 436 of 533 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Jigneshkumar C Patel maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 533 decided applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate stands at 82%. The record reflects work spanning multiple art units within TC 2100, with allowance rates ranging from 64% to 89% across these units. Of 585 total applications in the examiner's record, 436 were allowed and 97 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes from different art units and describes historical disposition only.
A pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units, producing an aggregate allowance rate that reflects the examiner's overall pattern across that group. The 82% figure describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (64% to 89%) indicates variation among individual art units but does not identify which rates attach to which units. Pooled data is useful context for understanding an examiner's general 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 →
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 control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 166 decided applications with an interview and 156 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 25 decided applications with an interview and 70 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Jigneshkumar C Patel 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: 585 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