LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/AMY NMN TRAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Amy Nmn Tran

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 31 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
35%vs 63% art-unit average28 pts

Examiner Amy Nmn Tran has allowed 11 of 31 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed11abandoned20pending31· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Amy Nmn Tran maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), spanning one art unit. Across dozens of decided applications in her pooled record, the allowance rate is 35%, meaning that 35% of her decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) resulted in allowance. This figure represents her historical rate on applications that have reached a final disposition. The record reflects examination activity in TC 2100 and does not constitute a prediction of outcomes on any future application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates examination decisions across all art units where this examiner works. The 35% allowance rate describes what occurred historically across dozens of decided applications and reflects past dispositions only. Pooled figures represent an aggregate view and are not predictions about any specific pending application. Individual art-unit records may show variation and appear in separate sections of this 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 2126
62 APPS · 35% ALLOWANCE

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

35% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION11 / 20 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION35.3 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.9 moart unit avg 44.4 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 eligibility91%art unit 53%+38 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness98%art unit 88%+10 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%no art-unit benchmark
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Amy Nmn Tran

  • What is this examiner's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 35% across dozens of decided applications in her pooled record. This represents the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that resulted in allowance.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans one art unit within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    This examiner works in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree 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 Amy Nmn Tran 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: 62 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