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

Examiner Namitha Pillai

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 466 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2021
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Namitha Pillai has allowed 274 of 466 decided applications (59%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

59% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2143 · 63%AU 2173 · 46%AU 2172 · 64%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Namitha Pillai maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units. Across 466 disposed applications, 274 were allowed, yielding a 59% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 46% to 64% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects decisions rendered across multiple distinct art-unit categories within TC 2100, aggregating the record without attribution to any single unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record combines applications and decisions from multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The overall allowance rate describes past dispositions across all assigned art units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Because different art units cover distinct subject matter, allowance rates often vary by unit. The range provided illustrates this variation; the pooled rate reflects the combined record across all units.

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 2143
256 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE
63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 52%
DISPOSITION161 / 95 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.5 moart unit avg 45.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW70%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW59%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 96 decided applications with an interview and 160 without.

ART UNIT 2173
118 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE
46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION54 / 64 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.2 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.6 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW61%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW42%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 23 decided applications with an interview and 95 without.

ART UNIT 2172
92 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE
64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION59 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.8 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY72.1 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness8%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW62%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 66 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Namitha Pillai

  • What is Examiner Pillai's overall allowance rate?
    59% across 466 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units: 2143, 2172, and 2173.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 46% to 64% across the examiner's art units. This data is pooled and does not assign any specific rate to any named unit.
  • Is the 59% allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The figure describes past dispositions and 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 Namitha Pillai 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: 466 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