LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BINH VAN HO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Binh Van Ho

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 659 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Binh Van Ho has allowed 554 of 659 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2163 · 82%AU 2152 · 87%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Binh Van Ho maintains a pooled allowance rate of 84% across 659 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's record spans two art units. Among these art units, allowance rates range from 82% to 87%. Of the 659 decided applications, 554 were allowed and 105 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across different subject areas within TC 2100 and reflects historical outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The 84% allowance rate reflects past decisions across all of the examiner's assigned art units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance rates vary among art units; the range shown (82% to 87%) indicates this variation. Aggregate statistics describe historical performance and do not forecast results in any individual case.

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 2163
415 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION342 / 73 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.4 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.9 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness18%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 65 decided applications with an interview and 350 without.

ART UNIT 2152
244 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION212 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.5 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.8 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 84 decided applications with an interview and 160 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Binh Van Ho

  • What is Examiner Binh Van Ho's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 84% across 659 disposed (decided) applications in TC 2100. This figure pools all of the examiner's decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Binh Van Ho has a public record in 2 art units within Technology Center 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 82% to 87% across the examiner's art units. The pooled figure of 84% represents the aggregate across all art units combined.
  • What do these statistics mean for my application?
    Historical allowance rates describe past outcomes and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Each application is examined on its own merits according to the patent laws and USPTO procedures.
◈ 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 Binh Van Ho 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: 659 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