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

Examiner Satish Rampuria

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,141 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 Satish Rampuria has allowed 997 of 1,141 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 96%AU 2191 · 77%AU 2124 · 22%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Satish Rampuria maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,141 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 87%. This reflects 997 allowed applications and 144 abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 77% to 96% across his art units, indicating variation in outcomes by subject-matter area within TC 2100. These figures describe his historical record and are not predictions for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, obscuring variation by individual technology area. The overall allowance rate of 87% represents the examiner's past dispositions across all his assigned art units combined. This aggregate figure describes historical performance only and is not a prediction of the outcome for any particular application or art unit. Individual art-unit records may show different allowance rates.

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 2193
663 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION611 / 25 / 27allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.2 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW84%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 510 decided applications with an interview and 126 without.

ART UNIT 2191
496 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 76%
DISPOSITION384 / 112 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.7 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.3 moart unit avg 41.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)54%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%+24 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 281 decided applications with an interview and 215 without.

ART UNIT 2124
9 APPS · 22% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

22% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION2 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Satish Rampuria

  • What is Satish Rampuria's allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 87% over 1,141 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned combined). This is a historical figure and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Rampuria's public record spans 3 art units: 2124, 2191, and 2193, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 77% to 96% across his art units. This range reflects variation in outcomes by subject-matter area within TC 2100. Individual art-unit records provide art-unit-specific allowance rates.
◈ 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 Satish Rampuria 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: 1,168 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