Examiner Tejal Gami has allowed 417 of 640 decided applications (65%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Tejal Gami has a pooled record of 640 disposed applications across six art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 417 were allowed and 223 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 65%. The examiner's record spans art units 2117, 2118, 2121, 2122, 2126, and 2127. Allowance rates across these art units range from 41% to 86%, reflecting variation in outcomes by individual art unit. This pooled figure aggregates results across all six units and does not isolate performance in any single art unit.
A pooled, cross-art-unit record combines outcomes from multiple distinct art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. The 65% figure represents historical results across all six units together and describes the examiner's past record over 640 decided cases. Aggregate statistics characterize what has occurred, not what will occur in any specific pending application. Allowance rates vary by art unit; the range of 41% to 86% indicates that individual art-unit records differ materially from the pool average. This data is correlational and does not establish causation.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 123 without.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 106 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 40 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 58 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 30 decided applications with an interview and 42 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 34 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Tejal Gami 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: 640 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