LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SUMIL MANUBHAI DESAI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Sumil Manubhai Desai

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 65 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Sumil Manubhai Desai has allowed 46 of 65 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

71% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 82%AU 2118 · 71%AU 2115 · 30%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sumil Manubhai Desai maintains a public record of 65 disposed applications across Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 46 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 71%. The examiner's record spans three art units within TC 2100. Allowance rates across these art units range from 71% to 82%, reflecting variation in the decided caseload composition across different areas within the technology center. This pooled figure represents the aggregate outcome across all three art units combined.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 71% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 65 decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Because the record combines different art units, the overall figure masks variation—individual art units show allowance rates between 71% and 82%. Separate per-unit records provide detail on allowance rates within each art unit. Pooled data describe historical performance only.

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 2187
34 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION28 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.2 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.8 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 34 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2118
21 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION15 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.5 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.1 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility14% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%

Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2115
10 APPS · 30% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

30% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 81%
DISPOSITION3 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 25.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.2 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%

Based on 10 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sumil Manubhai Desai

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    Across all art units, the allowance rate is 71%, based on 65 disposed (decided) applications. This describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans three art units (2115, 2118, 2187) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 71% to 82%. Individual art-unit records provide specific rates within each unit.
  • What does this pooled record measure?
    The pooled record combines outcomes across all three art units. The 71% rate reflects 46 allowances out of 65 total decided applications. It describes historical aggregate performance, not individual applications.
◈ 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 Sumil Manubhai Desai 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: 65 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