Examiner Cuong V Luu has allowed 853 of 1,176 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Cuong V Luu has a public record across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,176 decided applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate is 73%. This rate is computed from 853 allowed applications and 323 abandoned applications, excluding pending cases. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 57% to 82%. This range reflects the different subject matter and application volumes within TC 2100 where the examiner has maintained a record.
A pooled record aggregates allowance rates across multiple art units, creating an overall profile that masks variation among individual units. The 73% figure describes past dispositions on 1,176 decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled statistics show the examiner's general record in the technology center but do not isolate performance by art unit or application type. Applicants may review per-art-unit data separately for closer subject-matter alignment.
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.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 306 decided applications with an interview and 158 without.
Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 128 decided applications with an interview and 264 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 48 decided applications with an interview and 50 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 87 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Cuong V Luu 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: 1,231 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