LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JARED IAN RUTZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jared Ian Rutz

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 458 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 Jared Ian Rutz has allowed 376 of 458 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 82%AU 2135 · 100%AU 2133 · 55%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jared Ian Rutz maintains a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 458 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 376, yielding an 82% allowance rate. The allowance rate ranges from 55% to 100% across the examiner's art units. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and reflects historical disposition data. The record does not indicate future outcomes on any particular application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines results from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. The 82% figure represents the share of decided applications (allowed or abandoned) across all units where the examiner worked. Pooled statistics describe past outcomes and do not predict how any specific application will be examined or disposed. Individual art-unit records, where available separately, may show variation from this aggregate.

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 2187
394 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION325 / 69 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.5 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)33%
§103 — Obviousness66% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 87 decided applications with an interview and 307 without.

ART UNIT 2135
46 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION35 / 0 / 11allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.9 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%

Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2133
29 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION16 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.3 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%

Based on 29 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jared Ian Rutz

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner allowed 376 of 458 decided applications, for an 82% allowance rate across the pooled record in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner maintains a record in 3 art units: 2133, 2135, and 2187.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 55% to 100% across the examiner's art units. The 82% pooled figure is an aggregate and does not apply uniformly to each unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled statistic describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual prosecution depends on the merits of the claims, the prior art, and the art unit assigned.
◈ 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 Jared Ian Rutz 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: 469 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