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

Examiner Sivalingam Sivanesan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 308 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner Sivalingam Sivanesan has allowed 241 of 308 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

78% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2127 · 80%AU 2121 · 72%AU 2126 · 81%AU 2122 · 79%AU 2125 · 79%AU 2116 · 88%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sivalingam Sivanesan's public record spans 6 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 308 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 241 and abandoned 67, for an overall allowance rate of 78%. This rate reflects decided cases only and does not include pending applications. The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 72% to 81%, indicating variation in outcomes by art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 78% allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record across all assigned art units combined and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Aggregated figures mask differences between individual art units; applicants may wish to review the examiner's per-art-unit data for more granular information about their particular technology area.

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 2127
103 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

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

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION82 / 21 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.8 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness75% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW79%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 16 decided applications with an interview and 87 without.

ART UNIT 2121
76 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

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

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION55 / 21 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.5 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility14% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 59 without.

ART UNIT 2126
73 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

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

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION59 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.9 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility30% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
ART UNIT 2122
29 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION23 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.4 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.4 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)30%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

Based on 29 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2125
19 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION15 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.9 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.1 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)39%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%

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

ART UNIT 2116
8 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION7 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.8 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.9 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)33%
§103 — Obviousness33% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 8 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sivalingam Sivanesan

  • What is this examiner's allowance rate?
    78% across 308 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100. This is a pooled figure across all art units and does not predict any individual application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    6 art units: 2116, 2121, 2122, 2125, 2126, and 2127.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 72% to 81% across the examiner's assigned art units. Per-art-unit detail is available in the separate art-unit section of this page.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    The pooled rate and range are historical facts about past decisions, not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Your application's result depends on the claims, prior art, and examination conduct specific to your case.
◈ 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 Sivalingam Sivanesan 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: 308 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