LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KAMAL K DEWAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kamal K Dewan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 226 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 Kamal K Dewan has allowed 111 of 226 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

49% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2163 · 48%AU 2132 · 58%AU 2182 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Kamal K Dewan maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 226 decided applications, the examiner issued allowances on 111 and abandonments on 115, yielding an allowance rate of 49%. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 48% to 58%. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's combined record and does not represent a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units in TC 2100. Pooled statistics describe historical dispositions and allowance rates across those units combined. An aggregate allowance rate is a summary of past outcomes and is not a forecast of the result in any specific case. Individual art units may show different rates; those are detailed separately on this site.

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 2163
225 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION90 / 99 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.8 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)32%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW60%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW27%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 118 decided applications with an interview and 71 without.

ART UNIT 2132
33 APPS · 58% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

58% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION19 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 33 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2182
4 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION2 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.1 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.9 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kamal K Dewan

  • What is Examiner Dewan's overall allowance rate?
    49% over 226 decided applications (111 allowed, 115 abandoned) pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2132, 2163, and 2182, all within TC 2100.
  • Do the allowance rates differ across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 48% to 58% across the examiner's art units. Individual art-unit rates are shown separately on this site.
  • Does this pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical pooled allowance rates are not predictions of any specific application. Outcomes depend on the merits of your invention, claims, and prosecution history.
◈ 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 Kamal K Dewan 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: 262 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