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

Examiner Ryan A Jarrett

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,443 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 Jarrett has allowed 1,185 of 1,443 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2116 · 92%AU 2121 · 76%AU 2125 · 69%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan A Jarrett has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units: 2116, 2121, and 2125. Across 1,443 disposed applications, he allowed 1,185, for an allowance rate of 82%. The allowance rate ranges from 69% to 92% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record within TC 2100. This pooled figure represents outcomes already decided; pending applications are excluded from the calculation.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates results across multiple art units into a single overall statistic. The 82% allowance rate describes past dispositions across all three units combined and is historical data only—not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (69% to 92%) shows that individual art units within TC 2100 may differ from the aggregate. Pooled figures are useful for understanding an examiner's broad record but do not account for variation by art unit or application specifics.

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 2116
719 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION620 / 57 / 42allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.5 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.8 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness51% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%-5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 92 decided applications with an interview and 585 without.

ART UNIT 2121
524 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

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

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION399 / 125 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.6 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.3 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness73% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness64%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%+9 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 119 decided applications with an interview and 405 without.

ART UNIT 2125
242 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

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

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION166 / 76 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.1 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.9 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness70% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness66%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 53 decided applications with an interview and 189 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan A Jarrett

  • What is Ryan A Jarrett's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 82%, calculated from 1,185 allowed applications out of 1,443 total disposed applications in his pooled record across TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The pooled record spans three art units within TC 2100: 2116, 2121, and 2125.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 69% to 92% across the three art units. This range reflects variation within the pooled data; the 82% overall rate is the aggregate across all three.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. Historical pooled figures describe past decisions and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Application results depend on individual claim scope, prosecution history, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Jarrett 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: 1,485 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