LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ruay L Ho

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 623 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Ruay L Ho has allowed 432 of 623 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2175 · 64%AU 2126 · 93%AU 2142 · 70%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Ruay L Ho maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 623 disposed applications, 432 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 69%. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 64% to 93%, reflecting variation in the record across different subject areas within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across all three art units and describes historical outcomes only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled examiner record combines statistics from multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The overall allowance rate of 69% describes past dispositions across all art units together and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (64% to 93%) shows that allowance rates differ among the individual art units; the pooled rate sits between these extremes. Each art unit's individual record appears separately on this page and may provide additional context for applications in that 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 2175
477 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION307 / 170 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.4 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.4 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW62%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 233 decided applications with an interview and 244 without.

ART UNIT 2126
99 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

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

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION92 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.5 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 46 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2142
47 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION33 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.7 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.4 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility35% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%

Based on 47 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ruay L Ho

  • What is Examiner Ho's overall allowance rate?
    69%, based on 432 allowed applications out of 623 total disposed applications across all three art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2126, 2142, 2175) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 64% to 93% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application. Your application's outcome depends on the claims, prior art, and examination of the merits in your case.
◈ 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 Ruay L Ho 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: 623 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