Examiner Chrystine Pham has allowed 7 of 43 decided applications (16%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Chrystine Pham maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 43 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 16%, with 7 allowed and 36 abandoned. This rate reflects the aggregate of applications decided across both art units under this examiner's jurisdiction. The pooled record spans a defined subset of the technology center's subject matter and represents completed prosecution activity across the covered art units.
This profile aggregates Chrystine Pham's record across multiple art units within TC 2100. Pooled figures describe historical disposition of completed cases and do not constitute a prediction for any individual application. Different art units may have distinct subject-matter scope and prosecution patterns. The aggregate allowance rate reflects past decisions across all covered units combined and serves as a descriptive summary of closed cases only.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines software engineering.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Chrystine Pham 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: 43 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