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

Examiner Pursottam Giri

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 137 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Pursottam Giri has allowed 27 of 137 decided applications (20%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

20% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2186 · 46%AU 2147 · 12%AU 2188 · 6%AU 2128 · 40%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Pursottam Giri maintains a public record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 204 total applications, 27 were allowed and 110 abandoned, yielding 137 disposed applications. The pooled allowance rate stands at 20% of those decided applications. Allowance rates across the art units range from 12% to 46%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within this technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled profile aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 20% overall allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all decided applications in the examiner's record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Aggregate figures mask unit-level variation; the range of 12% to 46% shows that allowance rates differ substantially among the art units the examiner covers.

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 2186
93 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION12 / 14 / 67allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.7 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.1 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility92% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness84%
ART UNIT 2147
84 APPS · 12% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

12% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 44%
DISPOSITION10 / 74 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.1 moart unit avg 46.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility96% · art unit 74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW20%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW5%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 40 decided applications with an interview and 44 without.

ART UNIT 2188
17 APPS · 6% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

6% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION1 / 16 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.4 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.9 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness88%

Based on 17 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2128
10 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.

40% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION4 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.5 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.3 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility90% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%

Based on 10 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Pursottam Giri

  • What is Examiner Giri's overall allowance rate?
    20% of disposed applications (27 allowed out of 137 decided applications across all art units in the examiner's record).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units: 2128, 2147, 2186, and 2188, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the art units range from 12% to 46%, indicating variation in the examiner's record within this technology center.
  • What does this pooled record describe?
    Historical outcomes across all applications decided in the examiner's record. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome and does not establish expectations for pending or future cases.
◈ 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 Pursottam Giri 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: 204 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