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

Examiner Kannan Shanmugasundaram

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 613 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Kannan Shanmugasundaram has allowed 445 of 613 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

73% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2158 · 62%AU 2168 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kannan Shanmugasundaram holds a public record of 648 total applications across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 613 disposed applications, 445 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 73%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 62% to 85% across these art units. The record spans 168 abandoned applications. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate performance across multiple art units and does not predict outcomes in any specific case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates the examiner's performance across two separate art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 73% reflects the combined history of decided applications and is a snapshot of past dispositions, not a forecast. Allowance rates vary across art units—ranging from 62% to 85%—reflecting differences in subject matter complexity and application characteristics within the technology center. Individual art-unit records appear separately and may differ from this pooled view.

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 2158
331 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 48%
DISPOSITION206 / 125 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.5 moart unit avg 23.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.3 moart unit avg 49.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+44 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 220 decided applications with an interview and 111 without.

ART UNIT 2168
317 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION239 / 43 / 35allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.7 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.5 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 166 decided applications with an interview and 116 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kannan Shanmugasundaram

  • What is Kannan Shanmugasundaram's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 73% over 613 disposed applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner has a record in 2 art units (2158 and 2168) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 62% to 85% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in subject-matter areas within TC 2100.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled figure describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art-unit records may differ from the aggregate.
◈ 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 Kannan Shanmugasundaram 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: 648 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