Examiner Nithya Janakiraman Moll has allowed 410 of 608 decided applications (67%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Nithya Janakiraman Moll has a public record of 648 total applications across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 608 disposed applications, 410 were allowed, for an allowance rate of 67%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 55% to 82% across these art units. This pooled record aggregates work in multiple distinct art units and reflects outcomes on applications that have been decided.
A pooled record combines allowance data from multiple art units into a single figure. The 67% overall allowance rate describes past decisions across all units this examiner has worked. This aggregate is descriptive of historical outcomes and is not a prediction about any specific application. Individual art units may differ; separate pages provide per-unit detail. Allowance rates reflect only decided cases and exclude pending applications.
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 machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 56 decided applications with an interview and 114 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 49 decided applications with an interview and 60 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 104 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 56 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 41 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Nithya Janakiraman Moll 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