LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Raquel Perez-Arroyo

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 308 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Raquel Perez-Arroyo has allowed 183 of 308 decided applications (59%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

59% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2169 · 59%AU 2161
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Raquel Perez-Arroyo maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 308 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 59%. This means that of all decided cases—183 allowed and 125 abandoned—59% resulted in allowance. The record spans art units 2161 and 2169 within TC 2100. The pooled figures aggregate activity across both units and describe the historical record only, without indication of outcomes on any particular future filing.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's public profile is a pooled record aggregating two separate art units. The allowance rate of 59% is calculated from all decided applications across both units combined. Aggregate historical figures describe past dispositions and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art units may show different patterns; those rates appear in a separate section. Pool statistics provide context on overall record breadth but do not forecast individual case outcomes.

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 2169
347 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION183 / 125 / 39allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.5 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW39%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 212 decided applications with an interview and 96 without.

ART UNIT 2161
1 APPS · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION0 / 0 / 1allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION9.9 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCYart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Raquel Perez-Arroyo

  • What is Examiner Perez-Arroyo's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 59%, calculated from 308 disposed applications (183 allowed, 125 abandoned). This is a pooled figure across all art units and describes the historical record only—it is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Perez-Arroyo's public record spans 2 art units (2161 and 2169) in Technology Center 2100. The figures shown here are pooled across both units.
  • What technology areas does this examiner handle?
    This examiner works in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The pooled record covers activity in both assigned art units within that technology center.
  • What do these statistics tell me about my application?
    These figures describe the examiner's historical disposal record and are not a prediction of outcomes on any particular application. Past allowance rates are correlational data and do not determine future results.
◈ 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 Raquel Perez-Arroyo 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: 348 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