LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RYAN A DARE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ryan A Dare

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 659 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 Ryan A Dare has allowed 504 of 659 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2136 · 80%AU 2186 · 63%AU 2132 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan A Dare maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units. Across 659 decided applications, his allowance rate is 76%, with 504 allowed and 155 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 63% to 94% across his art units, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of cases within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates his work across all three units and describes his historical record without predicting any individual application's outcome.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record combines the examiner's results across multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The overall allowance rate reflects past decisions on all applications within that grouping and is not a prediction of how any particular application will be examined or decided. The range across art units indicates variation among the separate units but does not identify which specific unit produced which rate.

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 2136
369 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 60%
DISPOSITION297 / 72 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18 moart unit avg 27.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.6 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%-1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 308 without.

ART UNIT 2186
213 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION135 / 78 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)54%
§103 — Obviousness63% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness10%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW62%+25 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 198 without.

ART UNIT 2132
125 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

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

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION72 / 5 / 48allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.3 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%-16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 16 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan A Dare

  • What is Ryan A Dare's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 76% over 659 decided applications (504 allowed, 155 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    Three art units: 2132, 2136, and 2186.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 63% to 94% across these art units.
◈ 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 Ryan A Dare 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: 707 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