Examiner James D Rutten has allowed 480 of 756 decided applications (63%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
James D Rutten maintains a public record of 794 total applications across five art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 756 disposed applications, 480 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 63%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 59% to 70% across these art units. This pooled figure aggregates decisions made in art units 2121, 2122, 2192, 2194, and 2197, and reflects historical outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition.
A pooled record combines allowance data across multiple art units into a single aggregate statistic. This overall rate describes what has occurred in the examiner's past decisions, not what will occur in any future application. Because different art units cover different subject matter and complexity, individual art-unit rates may vary. The aggregate figure is useful context for understanding the examiner's historical record as a whole, but does not predict any specific application outcome.
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 183 decided applications with an interview and 71 without.
Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 129 decided applications with an interview and 122 without.
Primarily examines software engineering.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 126 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner James D Rutten 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: 794 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