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

Examiner Ryan M Stiglic

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 547 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Ryan M Stiglic has allowed 392 of 547 decided applications (72%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

72% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2111 · 72%AU 2112 · 73%AU 2185 · 71%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan M Stiglic's public record spans Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) across three art units. Over 547 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 392, for an allowance rate of 72%. This rate reflects decided cases only—allowed and abandoned applications combined—and excludes any pending matters. The allowance rate across the three art units ranges from 71% to 73%, indicating relatively consistent outcomes across the portfolio.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from three separate art units within TC 2100. The 72% allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record across decided applications in these units combined. Aggregate figures characterize past outcomes and are not predictions of any specific application's disposition. Individual art units may show variation; their separate records appear in a dedicated section of this page.

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 2111
464 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE
72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION332 / 132 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.1 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.9 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness64% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness35%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW72%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 62 decided applications with an interview and 402 without.

ART UNIT 2112
62 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

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

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 89%
DISPOSITION45 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.2 moart unit avg 21.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.8 moart unit avg 31.8 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW66%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 47 without.

ART UNIT 2185
21 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION15 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.5 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.6 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility6% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)65%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%

Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan M Stiglic

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    72% across 547 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned combined) pooled from three art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units: 2111, 2112, and 2185, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 73% across the three art units, showing modest variation.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This historical aggregate is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 M Stiglic 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: 547 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