LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DANIEL D TSUI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Daniel D Tsui

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 720 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 Daniel D Tsui has allowed 657 of 720 decided applications (91%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

91% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2132 · 95%AU 2185 · 55%AU 2182 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Daniel D Tsui has a public record of 741 total applications across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 720 disposed applications, 657 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 91%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 55% to 95%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all three art units and describes the examiner's historical record without predicting outcomes in any specific case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units into a single aggregate rate. The 91% allowance rate reflects past decisions across all three units. This aggregate is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may differ from the pooled rate. Review the separate per-unit section to see how rates vary within TC 2100.

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 2132
639 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

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

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION590 / 28 / 21allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.8 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.4 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility12% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW96%-2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 144 decided applications with an interview and 474 without.

ART UNIT 2185
65 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE
55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION36 / 29 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.1 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.1 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%
ART UNIT 2182
37 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION31 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.6 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%

Based on 37 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Daniel D Tsui

  • What is Daniel D Tsui's overall allowance rate?
    91% of disposed applications were allowed. This is based on 657 allowed applications out of 720 total disposed applications across all three art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2132, 2182, and 2185, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 55% to 95%. The pooled 91% is an aggregate across all units; individual units may differ significantly.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled figure is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The actual allowance rate in your art unit may differ from the pooled rate.
◈ 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 Daniel D Tsui 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: 741 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