Examiner Navneet K Gmahl has allowed 273 of 469 decided applications (58%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Navneet K Gmahl maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 58% across 469 disposed applications, comprising 273 allowed and 196 abandoned cases. The examiner's caseload spans one art unit. This allowance rate describes decided applications in the examiner's public record and reflects historical outcomes; it is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
This record aggregates the examiner's performance across all assigned art units in TC 2100. The allowance rate and application counts are pooled figures describing the examiner's past decisions on decided cases. An aggregate rate does not forecast the disposition of any particular application, which depends on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution specifics unique to each 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 →
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.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 214 decided applications with an interview and 255 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Navneet K Gmahl 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: 495 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