Examiner Rupal Dharia has allowed 20 of 23 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Rupal Dharia has a public record of 23 disposed applications across Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those 23 decided applications, 20 were allowed and 3 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 87%. This record spans 3 art units within TC 2100. The figures presented here aggregate the examiner's work across all three art units and reflect outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition.
This record is a pooled aggregate across multiple art units within TC 2100. The allowance rate and application counts combine work from different examination areas. Aggregate figures describe the past record only and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art-unit records may vary and are detailed separately. These statistics reflect historical outcomes and do not indicate how any particular future application will be examined.
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 interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units, and program control and execution.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Rupal Dharia 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: 23 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