LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/TODD D INGBERG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Todd D Ingberg

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 201 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Todd D Ingberg has allowed 162 of 201 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

81% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 82%AU 2124 · 72%AU 2122 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Todd D Ingberg has disposed of 201 applications across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 162 were allowed and 39 were abandoned, yielding an 81% allowance rate. The examiner's record spans art units 2122, 2124, and 2193. Allowance rates across these art units range from 72% to 82%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and describes past decisions without predicting outcomes in any specific case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units in TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 81% is a pooled statistic calculated from all 201 decided applications. Because different art units may have different claim patterns and validity questions, the allowance rate varies by art unit (72% to 82%). This pooled figure is historical and does not predict the outcome of any individual application.

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 2193
168 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION138 / 30 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION35.7 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53 moart unit avg 44 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 75 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.

ART UNIT 2124
32 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION23 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.9 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
ART UNIT 2122
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION8.1 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY16.9 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Todd D Ingberg

  • What is Todd D Ingberg's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 81%, based on 162 allowed applications out of 201 total disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner has a record across 3 art units (2122, 2124, and 2193) in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 72% to 82%, indicating variation in outcomes depending on the specific art unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Actual results depend on the claims, prior art, and the specific art unit.
◈ 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 Todd D Ingberg 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: 201 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