LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KAUSHIKKUMAR M PATEL
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kaushikkumar M Patel

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,007 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 Kaushikkumar M Patel has allowed 827 of 1,007 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2138 · 87%AU 2188 · 73%AU 2186 · 80%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kaushikkumar M Patel maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,007 disposed applications, the examiner issued allowances in 827 cases, yielding an 82% allowance rate. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 73% to 87%. This pooled record reflects decisions across multiple subject-matter areas within TC 2100 and does not represent performance on any single application or art unit in isolation.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across 3 separate art units. The overall 82% allowance rate is a historical summary of decided cases and reflects past dispositions only. Pooled figures mask variation among individual art units; the range of 73% to 87% indicates that allowance rates differ depending on which art unit examines a given application. These statistics are correlational records of past decisions and are not predictions of outcomes in any specific pending case.

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 2138
608 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

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

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION506 / 78 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.5 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.3 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)42%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%-8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 157 decided applications with an interview and 427 without.

ART UNIT 2188
244 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION178 / 66 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.7 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.4 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)40%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW72%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 199 without.

ART UNIT 2186
179 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION143 / 36 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.4 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.4 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)32%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 42 decided applications with an interview and 137 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kaushikkumar M Patel

  • What is Kaushikkumar M Patel's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 82%, based on 827 allowed applications among 1,007 total disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner maintains a public record across 3 art units (2138, 2186, 2188) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 73% to 87% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in historical allowance rates depending on art unit.
  • What does this pooled record represent?
    This record aggregates all dispositions across the examiner's 3 art units and reflects past decisions only. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Kaushikkumar M 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: 1,031 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