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

Examiner Jyoti Mehta

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 331 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Jyoti Mehta has allowed 244 of 331 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2182 · 71%AU 2183 · 78%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jyoti Mehta maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 331 disposed applications, 244 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 74%. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 78% across these art units. The examiner's pooled record reflects activity spanning two distinct art-unit categories within TC 2100, with variation in allowance rates between them. This aggregate figure represents historical disposition data and does not characterize any single pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates allowance rates across multiple art units, presenting a composite view of an examiner's historical decisions. The 74% allowance rate describes applications already decided—not a forecast for future filings. The range (71% to 78%) shows that individual art units within TC 2100 may have differed in allowance rates; the aggregate masks this variation. Pooled statistics describe past performance only and carry no predictive force for any particular case or applicant.

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 2182
208 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION148 / 60 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.6 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.1 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility35% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness88%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+49 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 163 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

ART UNIT 2183
131 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION96 / 27 / 8allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.7 moart unit avg 25 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.2 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness82%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+28 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 74 decided applications with an interview and 49 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jyoti Mehta

  • What is Jyoti Mehta's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 74%, calculated over 331 disposed applications (244 allowed, 87 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 2 art units (2182 and 2183) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 71% to 78%. This pooled record aggregates all units and does not assign a specific rate to any named unit.
  • Does this allowance rate predict outcomes in my application?
    No. The 74% figure is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 Jyoti Mehta 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: 339 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