LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CECILE H VO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cecile H Vo

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 476 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Cecile H Vo has allowed 318 of 476 decided applications (67%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

67% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2153 · 74%AU 2169 · 56%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Cecile H Vo maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning two art units. Across 476 disposed applications, 318 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 67%. This rate reflects decided cases (allowed plus abandoned applications); pending cases are excluded. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 56% to 74%. This range illustrates variation in outcomes within the pooled record. The data presented here describes the examiner's historical record only and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate represents a historical average across all decided applications in those units combined. Pooled figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions about any specific case. To understand how an examiner operates within a particular art unit, review the per-art-unit breakdown available in the detailed section of this profile. Aggregate statistics inform context but do not forecast individual application results.

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 2153
282 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION209 / 73 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.4 moart unit avg 27.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.2 moart unit avg 41.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility74% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW57%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 165 decided applications with an interview and 117 without.

ART UNIT 2169
194 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION109 / 85 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.7 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.6 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility60% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW25%+60 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 101 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cecile H Vo

  • What is Examiner Vo's overall allowance rate?
    67% across 476 disposed applications. This is the percentage of decided cases (allowed plus abandoned) and does not include pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Two art units within TC 2100: Art Units 2153 and 2169. This pooled record aggregates data across both.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 74% across the examiner's art units. The per-art-unit breakdown is available separately.
  • Does this record predict outcomes for my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past decisions and are not predictions for any specific application or case.
◈ 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 Cecile H Vo 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: 476 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