LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RYAN C VAUGHN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ryan C Vaughn

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 243 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
62%vs 75% art-unit average13 pts

Examiner Ryan C Vaughn has allowed 151 of 243 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed151abandoned92pending58· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan C Vaughn maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 62%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across the examiner's art unit. The examiner's record spans one art unit within TC 2100. The allowance rate is a summary of past decisions and does not indicate the outcome of any particular application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units in TC 2100. The 62% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across multiple applications and art areas within the technology center. Pooled figures reflect past patterns and are not predictions for any specific case. Individual art units may have different allowance rates; those details appear in separate art-unit sections of the examiner's profile.

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 2125
301 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE

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

62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION151 / 92 / 58allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.4 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.8 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility61%art unit 51%+10 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness92%art unit 88%+4 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%no art-unit benchmark
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW68%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW51%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 158 decided applications with an interview and 85 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan C Vaughn

  • What is Ryan C Vaughn's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 62% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record covers one art unit within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed. It is a historical summary, not a prediction for any specific application.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    The pooled rate describes the examiner's past record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual results vary.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 C Vaughn 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 July 14, 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: 301 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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