LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHAU T NGUYEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Chau T Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 640 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 Chau T Nguyen has allowed 421 of 640 decided applications (66%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

66% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2177 · 64%AU 2145 · 90%AU 2176 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Chau T Nguyen has a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 640 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 421, for an allowance rate of 66%. The allowance rates across these art units range from 50% to 90%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across distinct subject areas and does not represent a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record pools decisions across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 66% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 640 decided applications and reflects aggregate performance across different examination areas. Pooled figures describe historical data, not probabilities for specific cases. Individual art-unit rates may differ substantially from the overall figure.

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 2177
361 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE
64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION232 / 129 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.6 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW46%+31 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 215 decided applications with an interview and 146 without.

ART UNIT 2145
164 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION112 / 12 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.7 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.1 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)84%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 76 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2176
155 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION77 / 78 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.8 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW24%+57 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 69 decided applications with an interview and 86 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Chau T Nguyen

  • What is Chau T Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    66% across 640 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units: 2145, 2176, and 2177.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across these art units?
    Allowance rates range from 50% to 90% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does this pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This is a historical aggregate across multiple art units and does not predict any specific application's disposition.
◈ 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 Chau T Nguyen 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: 680 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