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

Examiner Ryan S Barrett

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 471 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Ryan S Barrett has allowed 323 of 471 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 73%AU 2148 · 81%AU 2171 · 44%AU 2175 · 75%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Ryan S Barrett maintains an overall allowance rate of 69% across 471 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans four art units: 2145, 2148, 2171, and 2175. Of the 471 decided applications, 323 were allowed and 148 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 44% to 81%. This pooled figure represents an aggregate of his examination activity across all four art units and describes his historical record.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates examination activity across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 69% allowance rate is calculated from all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across the examiner's entire art-unit portfolio. Pooled figures describe past patterns and do not function as predictions for any individual application. Allowance rates vary by art unit; the range reflects this variation across his assigned areas.

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 2145
238 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION173 / 65 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.4 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.2 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW58%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 161 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.

ART UNIT 2148
149 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

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

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION92 / 21 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.8 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.2 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW67%+28 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 58 decided applications with an interview and 55 without.

ART UNIT 2171
104 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE
44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION46 / 58 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.7 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW19%+59 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 59 without.

ART UNIT 2175
16 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION12 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.9 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.8 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%

Based on 16 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ryan S Barrett

  • What is Ryan S Barrett's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 69%, calculated across 471 disposed (decided) applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units: 2145, 2148, 2171, and 2175, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 44% to 81% across these art units. This pooled figure is an aggregate and does not represent any single art unit.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me about a specific application?
    The 69% figure describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 S Barrett 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: 507 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