LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ariel Mercado Vargas

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 491 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 Ariel Mercado Vargas has allowed 357 of 491 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

73% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2176 · 69%AU 2118 · 88%AU 2144 · 70%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Ariel Mercado Vargas maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 491 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 73%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 69% to 88% across these art units. Of 532 total applications on record, 357 were allowed and 134 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across all three art units and reflects historical dispositions only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record pools applications across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 73% allowance rate describes decided cases (allowed plus abandoned) and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range from 69% to 88% reflects variation among the examiner's separate art units; the aggregate figure does not indicate performance in any single unit. Pooled data describes the past record and provides context for understanding examiner history across the technology center.

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 2176
371 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

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

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION256 / 115 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.4 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW53%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 204 decided applications with an interview and 167 without.

ART UNIT 2118
138 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE
88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION85 / 12 / 41allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.2 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 49 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2144
23 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION16 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.9 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.4 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%

Based on 23 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ariel Mercado Vargas

  • What is Examiner Mercado Vargas's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 73% over 491 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned cases). This is a pooled figure across all art units and describes historical dispositions, not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 69% to 88% across the three art units. This variation reflects differences in dispositions among the separate units.
◈ 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 Ariel Mercado Vargas 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: 532 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