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

Examiner Ryan Bertram

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 933 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 Bertram has allowed 840 of 933 decided applications (90%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

90% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2137 · 93%AU 2187 · 85%AU 2112 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan Bertram maintains a 90% allowance rate across 933 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans three art units: 2112, 2137, and 2187. Of 957 total applications, 840 were allowed and 93 abandoned. The allowance rate represents a ratio of decided cases only and excludes pending matters. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 85% to 93%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record by subject area within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates data across three separate art units within TC 2100. The pooled 90% allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Aggregate figures mask variation: individual art-unit rates range from 85% to 93%. Reading a cross-art-unit profile requires understanding that it combines different subject areas and prosecution patterns, and past aggregate rates do not determine future dispositions on any particular case.

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 2137
632 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

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

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION565 / 43 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.4 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW93%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 182 decided applications with an interview and 426 without.

ART UNIT 2187
324 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION274 / 50 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.3 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.5 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness69% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness16%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW84%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 285 without.

ART UNIT 2112
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring, and error-correcting coding/decoding.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 89%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 21.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.2 moart unit avg 31.8 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan Bertram

  • What is Ryan Bertram's overall allowance rate?
    90% across 933 disposed applications. This represents allowed and abandoned applications only; pending cases are excluded from the calculation.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three: art units 2112, 2137, and 2187, all within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 85% to 93% across these art units, indicating variation in the historical record by subject area.
  • Does the 90% allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes past-decided cases only and is not a prediction of any specific application. Individual outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and other prosecution 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 Bertram 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: 957 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