LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KESHAB R PANDEY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Keshab R Pandey

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 478 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 Keshab R Pandey has allowed 429 of 478 decided applications (90%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

90% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 91%AU 2176 · 96%AU 2118 · 77%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Keshab R Pandey maintains a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 478 decided applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate stands at 90%, with 429 applications allowed and 49 abandoned. The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 77% to 96%, reflecting variation in outcomes within this technology center. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units and represents historical outcomes only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data across multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The overall allowance rate of 90% reflects decisions rendered across all assigned art units and describes what has occurred, not what will occur in any future application. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; the range of 77% to 96% illustrates this variation. Pooled figures are descriptive of past record and are not predictions for specific cases.

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 2187
287 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION260 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.4 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.4 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)45%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 104 decided applications with an interview and 183 without.

ART UNIT 2176
142 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION112 / 5 / 25allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.9 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.8 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)42%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 86 without.

ART UNIT 2118
74 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE
77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION57 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.8 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.8 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness64%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW67%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 35 decided applications with an interview and 39 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Keshab R Pandey

  • What is Keshab R Pandey's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 90%, calculated over 478 decided applications (429 allowed, 49 abandoned). This is a historical figure and not a prediction of outcomes in any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Keshab R Pandey has a public record in 3 art units within TC 2100. The pooled record shown here aggregates all work across these units.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 77% to 96% across the examiner's art units. This range reflects variation among the individual art units and is part of the pooled record only.
◈ 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 Keshab R Pandey 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: 503 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