LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SANTOSH RAJ POUDEL
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Santosh Raj Poudel

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 587 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 Santosh Raj Poudel has allowed 453 of 587 decided applications (77%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

77% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2115 · 80%AU 2118 · 65%AU 2126 · 67%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Santosh Raj Poudel maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 587 disposed applications, 453 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 77%. The examiner's record spans art units 2115, 2118, and 2126. Allowance rates across these art units range from 65% to 80%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications handled within each unit. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across all assigned art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines results from multiple art units into one aggregate figure. The 77% allowance rate reflects the share of allowed applications among all decided cases across art units 2115, 2118, and 2126. This historical aggregate does not predict the outcome of any individual application. Variation across art units—ranging from 65% to 80%—reflects differences in application mix and complexity by unit. Pooled data provides context for the examiner's overall activity and serves as background; specific applications may be subject to distinct art-unit standards and examiner practices.

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 2115
529 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems, and electric power networks.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 81%
DISPOSITION381 / 96 / 52allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.6 moart unit avg 25.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.8 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness72%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 293 decided applications with an interview and 184 without.

ART UNIT 2118
95 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION62 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.4 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.2 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness94%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW41%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.

ART UNIT 2126
15 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION10 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%

Based on 15 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Santosh Raj Poudel

  • What is the examiner's overall allowance rate?
    Across 587 disposed applications, Santosh Raj Poudel allowed 453, for an allowance rate of 77%. This figure is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a substantial record in three art units: 2115, 2118, and 2126, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 65% to 80% across the three art units. This spread reflects variation in application composition and outcomes by unit and does not indicate examiner quality or approach.
  • Does the pooled rate apply to my application?
    The 77% figure describes the historical record and is not a prediction for any specific case. Applications are evaluated individually on their merits under 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 Santosh Raj Poudel 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: 639 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