LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Bai Duc Vu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 799 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Bai Duc Vu has allowed 632 of 799 decided applications (79%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

79% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 73%AU 2162 · 90%AU 2163 · 98%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Bai Duc Vu maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units: 2162, 2163, and 2165. Across 799 decided applications, the examiner has allowed 632, yielding an allowance rate of 79%. The 167 abandoned applications are included in this decided count. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 73% to 98%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record and does not predict outcomes in any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across three separate art units in TC 2100. The 79% allowance rate describes past decisions on 799 applications that reached final disposition—neither pending cases nor future applications. The range of 73% to 98% indicates that individual art units within this examiner's portfolio show different allowance rates. Pooled figures describe historical record; they are not forecasts of any specific case outcome.

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 2165
556 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION405 / 151 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.4 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.8 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility78% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness64%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW84%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 277 decided applications with an interview and 279 without.

ART UNIT 2162
136 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION122 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.1 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility89% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)31%
§103 — Obviousness32% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness93%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 86 decided applications with an interview and 50 without.

ART UNIT 2163
134 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

98% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION105 / 2 / 27allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.7 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY22.7 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility87% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness47% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW96%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 58 decided applications with an interview and 49 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Bai Duc Vu

  • What is Bai Duc Vu's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 79%, calculated over 799 decided applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Bai Duc Vu's public record spans three art units: 2162, 2163, and 2165.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 73% to 98%, showing variation by art unit.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    This record describes past decisions 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 Bai Duc Vu 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: 826 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