LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PATRICK F RIEGLER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Patrick F Riegler

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 365 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 Patrick F Riegler has allowed 204 of 365 decided applications (56%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

56% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 54%AU 2171 · 76%AU 2173 · 39%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Patrick F Riegler has a public record of 409 total applications across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 365 disposed applications, 204 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 56%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across the art units served, ranging from 39% to 76%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate outcome of decided applications and does not describe any single art unit or predict outcomes in individual cases.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates decisions across multiple art units within TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate is a historical summary of past dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications—and reflects the examiner's overall pattern across different subject areas. The rate varies by art unit, as shown in the range. Pooled figures describe the record in aggregate and are not predictions for any specific application or art unit.

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 2142
206 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

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

54% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION111 / 95 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.9 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY59.5 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 120 decided applications with an interview and 86 without.

ART UNIT 2171
128 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE
76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION64 / 20 / 44allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.2 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.9 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness74%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2173
75 APPS · 39% ALLOWANCE
39% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION29 / 46 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.5 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.8 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility60% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)20%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW61%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW26%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 47 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Patrick F Riegler

  • What is Patrick F Riegler's overall allowance rate?
    56%, based on 204 allowed applications among 365 disposed (decided) applications in his pooled record across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2142, 2171, 2173) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across the art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 76% across the art units in which he maintains a substantial record. This range reflects variation among the separate art units, not a prediction for any specific application.
  • What does this pooled record include?
    A total of 409 applications, of which 365 have been disposed. Disposed applications include 204 allowed and 161 abandoned. The pooled allowance rate aggregates across all three art units and does not break down by individual unit.
◈ 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 Patrick F Riegler 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: 409 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