LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Omar F Fernandez Rivas

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 408 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 Omar F Fernandez Rivas has allowed 272 of 408 decided applications (67%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

67% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2129 · 70%AU 2128 · 48%AU 2122 · 83%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Omar F Fernandez Rivas has a pooled public record of 423 total applications across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 408 disposed applications, 272 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 67%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 48% to 83% across the art units in which the examiner maintains a substantial record. This pooled figure represents the aggregate outcome across all three art units and does not reflect performance within any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record as a whole and reflects past dispositions. The range (48% to 83%) shows variation among individual art units but does not identify which art unit carries which rate. Pooled figures are descriptive of history only and are not predictions about any specific application.

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 2129
200 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION140 / 60 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.1 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness38% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 139 without.

ART UNIT 2128
131 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION56 / 60 / 15allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.3 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.5 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility71% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness75% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW35%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW52%-17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 90 without.

ART UNIT 2122
92 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION76 / 16 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.9 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.3 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness48% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Omar F Fernandez Rivas

  • What is Omar F Fernandez Rivas's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 67%, based on 272 allowed applications out of 408 disposed applications across all art units.
  • In how many art units does this examiner work?
    The examiner maintains a public record across 3 art units (2122, 2128, 2129) in TC 2100.
  • How much does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 48% to 83% across the examiner's art units. This range reflects variation in outcomes but does not identify specific rates per art unit.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Omar F Fernandez Rivas 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: 423 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