Examiner Ben M Rifkin has allowed 224 of 460 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Ben M Rifkin has a public record of 509 total applications across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 460 disposed applications, 224 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 49%. The examiner's allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 45% to 52%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record across all art units and reflects decisions already issued, not a prediction for any pending or future application.
This record is pooled across multiple art units, meaning it combines the examiner's decisions in different subject areas within TC 2100. The allowance rate and total counts are aggregates and describe the historical record only. Because different art units may have different claim types, technologies, or prosecution patterns, a pooled figure does not predict the outcome of any specific application. The range across art units illustrates variation within the examiner's record.
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 66 decided applications with an interview and 119 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 70 decided applications with an interview and 18 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 35 decided applications with an interview and 62 without.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 27 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Ben M Rifkin 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: 509 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