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

Examiner Shourjo Dasgupta

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 479 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 Shourjo Dasgupta has allowed 322 of 479 decided applications (67%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

67% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2174 · 65%AU 2144 · 76%AU 2176 · 70%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Shourjo Dasgupta's public record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), encompassing 515 total applications. Of 479 disposed applications, 322 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 67%. The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 65% to 76%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and reflects the examiner's historical record; it does not characterize performance in any specific art unit or predict outcomes in future applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that reflects cumulative historical outcomes. This aggregate figure describes past disposition and is not a prediction of any particular application's outcome. Individual art units may vary; the range reported here (65% to 76%) indicates that variation exists. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding overall patterns but do not substitute for unit-specific analysis.

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 2174
361 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION234 / 127 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.6 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW42%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 233 decided applications with an interview and 128 without.

ART UNIT 2144
127 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE
76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION69 / 22 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.8 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 32 without.

ART UNIT 2176
27 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION19 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.3 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%

Based on 27 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shourjo Dasgupta

  • What is Examiner Dasgupta's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 67%, based on 322 allowed applications out of 479 disposed applications. This is a pooled figure across all art units in the examiner's record.
  • How many art units does Examiner Dasgupta work in?
    Examiner Dasgupta's record spans 3 art units within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 76% across the examiner's art units. This range reflects variation in historical outcomes by individual art unit.
◈ 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 Shourjo Dasgupta 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: 515 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