LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SHEELA S RAO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Sheela S Rao

TECH CENTER 2100 · 7 ART UNITS · 564 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 7 ART UNITS

Examiner Sheela S Rao has allowed 452 of 564 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2119 · 83%AU 2125 · 86%AU 2127 · 81%AU 2123 · 70%AU 2122 · 63%AU 2128 · 41%AU 2121 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Sheela S Rao maintains a public record across 7 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 564 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 80%, with 452 applications allowed and 112 abandoned. The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 70% to 86%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art-unit assignment. This pooled figure aggregates dispositions across multiple subject areas and does not predict any individual application's outcome.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate as historical fact rather than a prediction tool. The range (70% to 86%) shows that allowance rates differ by art unit; the pooled figure (80%) is a weighted average across all units in the record. Aggregate statistics describe past output and are correlational only—they do not forecast the path or result of any specific application.

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 2119
211 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines electric power networks, supply, and distribution.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION161 / 32 / 18allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.5 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.6 moart unit avg 31.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 75 decided applications with an interview and 118 without.

ART UNIT 2125
139 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

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

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION119 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.4 moart unit avg 39 mo
ART UNIT 2127
134 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

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

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION109 / 25 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.9 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility12% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 106 without.

ART UNIT 2123
61 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE

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

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 51%
DISPOSITION43 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.8 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.7 moart unit avg 43.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%
ART UNIT 2122
19 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION12 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.1 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY59.1 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness63% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

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

ART UNIT 2128
17 APPS · 41% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

41% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION7 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.9 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
ART UNIT 2121
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION6.3 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY10.4 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sheela S Rao

  • What is Examiner Rao's overall allowance rate?
    Over 564 decided applications, the allowance rate is 80%, reflecting 452 allowed and 112 abandoned applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Rao work in?
    The examiner's public record spans 7 art units (2119, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2125, 2127, 2128) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across Examiner Rao's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 70% to 86% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art-unit assignment.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Pooled statistics are historical summaries, not predictions of individual application outcomes. Results vary by art unit, claim scope, prior art, and applicant arguments.
◈ 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 Sheela S Rao 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: 582 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