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

Examiner Sanchita Roy

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 339 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Sanchita Roy has allowed 250 of 339 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 70%AU 2146 · 86%AU 2143 · 68%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Sanchita Roy maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 339 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 74%. Of 372 total applications on file, 250 were allowed and 89 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 68% to 86%. This pooled figure represents decisions rendered across all three art units and does not reflect pending applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing a single allowance rate that reflects the examiner's historical decisions in TC 2100. The 74% figure describes applications already decided—both allowed and abandoned—and is not a prediction of outcome for any specific pending application. The range (68%–86%) shows variation among individual art units; the aggregate rate reflects all three combined.

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 2178
222 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE
70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION155 / 67 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.1 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW26%+60 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 161 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.

ART UNIT 2146
119 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 50%
DISPOSITION74 / 12 / 33allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.7 moart unit avg 32 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.4 moart unit avg 45 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness82%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.

ART UNIT 2143
31 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 52%
DISPOSITION21 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.3 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.3 moart unit avg 45.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility30% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness70% · art unit 94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness90%

Based on 31 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sanchita Roy

  • What is Examiner Roy's overall allowance rate?
    74% over 339 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    3 art units: 2143, 2146, and 2178. This pooled record combines all three.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Across the examiner's art units, allowance rates range from 68% to 86%. The 74% pooled rate is the average across all three units combined.
  • Does this rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past decisions and are not predictions. Each application is examined individually based on the claims, prior art, and applicable law.
◈ 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 Sanchita Roy 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: 372 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