AI Patent Analysis Toolkit
PatentAgility
by KellDann

Examiner Sumesh Kaushal

Appears inactive Last observed office action: November 2011 (172 months ago).

Examiner Sumesh Kaushal appears to be very easy relative to their art unit, group, tech center, and USPTO peers. Their lifetime grant ratio is 58.5%, they average 1.29 office actions per granted patent, and their rejection profile is dominated by §112, with occasional §101 rejections and elevated §112 usage.

Difficulty vs AU Very Easy
Difficulty vs Group Very Easy
Difficulty vs TC Very Easy
Difficulty vs USPTO Very Easy
Average OA / Grant 1.29
Export
Word PDF

Create account to export.

Examiner Details

Observed Examiner Years
4 years (2008-2011)
Tech Center
1600 - Biotechnology and Organic
Group
1630 - Stem Cells and Nucleic Acid Related Therapy

Metrics

Applications Evaluated
41
Granted Applications
24
Non-Granted Applications
17
Avg OA / Grant
1.29
Last OA Observed
November 2011 (172 months ago)
Art Units Seen
1633
Work Groups Seen

Context Comparison

Scope Examiners Lifetime Grant Ratio Avg OA / Grant
This Examiner 1 58.5% 1.29
Art Unit 31 38.9% 2.18
Group 243 38.4% 2.18
Tech Center 1,349 39.5% 2.02
USPTO 16,116 54.8% 1.98

Grant Timeline

0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011
Shaded region marks the last two observed years, where grant outcomes may lag due to recency.
Year Applications Granted Grant Rate
No observed data before 2008; examiner may not yet have been active in the available dataset.
2008 3 2 66.7%
2009 10 3 30.0%
2010 10 6 60.0%
2011 18 13 72.2%
No observed data after 2011; examiner may have gone inactive or moved out of examining work.

24 family-cache-validated grants; 0 OA-only grant signals.

Rejection Timeline

OA # Office Actions § 101 Percentage § 102 Percentage § 103 Percentage § 112 Percentage
1 41 2.4% 12.2% 22.0% 56.1%
2 12 8.3% 8.3% 41.7% 41.7%
3 2 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

§ 101 Yearly Trend

0.0%
2008
6.3%
2009
6.3%
2010
0.0%
2011

Each bar shows the share of this examiner's observed office actions in that year that included a § 101 rejection.