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

Examiner Ryan F Pitaro

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 734 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Ryan F Pitaro has allowed 498 of 734 decided applications (68%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

68% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2171 · 70%AU 2174 · 56%AU 2198 · 79%AU 2188 · 92%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan F Pitaro maintains a public record across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 734 disposed applications, the examiner has allowed 498 and abandoned 236, yielding an allowance rate of 68%. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 56% to 92%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications handled within each unit. This pooled record aggregates activity across distinct examination areas and does not predict outcomes in any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 68% allowance rate describes past decisions on 734 closed applications and reflects the examiner's combined history across these units. Aggregate figures characterize historical output, not forecasts for any pending or future application. Per-art-unit detail, where available separately, shows how rates vary by examination area.

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 2171
294 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE
70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION205 / 89 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.3 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// 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 82 decided applications with an interview and 212 without.

ART UNIT 2174
264 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE
56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION149 / 115 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY63.8 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)33%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW51%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 71 decided applications with an interview and 193 without.

ART UNIT 2198
139 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION110 / 29 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.6 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW75%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 69 without.

ART UNIT 2188
39 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION34 / 3 / 2allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.6 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%

Based on 39 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan F Pitaro

  • What is the examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner allowed 498 of 734 disposed applications, for an allowance rate of 68% across Technology Center 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 4 art units within TC 2100: 2171, 2174, 2188, and 2198.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 56% to 92%. This range reflects variation in application composition and outcomes by unit and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • What does this pooled record show?
    The pooled record aggregates the examiner's decisions across all 4 art units. It describes historical outcomes and does not forecast results for any pending application or individual 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 Ryan F Pitaro 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: 736 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