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

Examiner Sanjiv Shah

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 130 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Sanjiv Shah has allowed 73 of 130 decided applications (56%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

56% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2176 · 75%AU 2172 · 86%AU 2185 · 0%AU 2135 · 5%AU 2166 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sanjiv Shah's public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spans five art units: 2135, 2166, 2172, 2176, and 2185. Across 130 disposed applications, 73 were allowed and 57 abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 56%. The allowance rate varies across his art units, ranging from 0% to 86%. This pooled figure represents his aggregate historical record across all five art units and does not predict outcomes in any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates Sanjiv Shah's work across five separate art units within TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate describes past dispositions and reflects the examiner's overall history across multiple technology areas. The range (0% to 86%) illustrates variation among individual art units but does not indicate which rates apply to which units. These figures are historical and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome.

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 2176
59 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION44 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.7 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
ART UNIT 2172
28 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION24 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.5 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.3 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
ART UNIT 2185
20 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION0 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY62.3 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%

Based on 20 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2135
19 APPS · 5% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

5% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION1 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.5 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)74%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%

Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2166
4 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION4 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.7 moart unit avg 23.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.4 moart unit avg 45 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness75% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%

Based on 4 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sanjiv Shah

  • What is Sanjiv Shah's overall allowance rate?
    56% across 130 disposed applications pooled from all five art units.
  • How many art units does Sanjiv Shah's record cover?
    Five art units in TC 2100: 2135, 2166, 2172, 2176, and 2185.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 0% to 86% across the examiner's art units with a substantial record.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Sanjiv Shah 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: 130 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