LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHRISTINE TRINH LE TU
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christine Trinh Le Tu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,130 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Christine Trinh Le Tu has allowed 1,049 of 1,130 decided applications (93%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

93% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 89%AU 2111 · 97%AU 2133 · 96%AU 2138 · 92%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Christine Trinh Le Tu maintains a public record across four art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,130 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 1,049 and abandoned 81, yielding an allowance rate of 93%. The allowance rate ranges from 89% to 97% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in the rate at which applications are decided favorably within each unit's subject matter.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units in TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 93% describes the examiner's historical record on decided applications and does not forecast the outcome of any specific filing. Pooled figures mask individual art-unit variation; rates range from 89% to 97% across units. Past statistics are descriptive only and are not predictions about future applications.

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 2117
480 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION425 / 55 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.8 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.6 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)25%
§103 — Obviousness61% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 72 decided applications with an interview and 408 without.

ART UNIT 2111
408 APPS · 97% ALLOWANCE
97% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION397 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.7 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness59% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 105 decided applications with an interview and 303 without.

ART UNIT 2133
134 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION128 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.3 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
ART UNIT 2138
108 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION99 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.2 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.7 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christine Trinh Le Tu

  • What is Christine Trinh Le Tu's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 93%, based on 1,130 disposed applications (1,049 allowed, 81 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner maintains a record across four art units (2111, 2117, 2133, 2138) in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 89% to 97% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in allowance outcomes by unit.
  • Is the allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The allowance rate reflects the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction of the outcome for any specific filing.
◈ 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 Christine Trinh Le Tu 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: 1,130 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