LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Diem K Cao

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 877 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 Diem K Cao has allowed 701 of 877 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2196 · 83%AU 2194 · 71%AU 2126 · 79%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Diem K Cao has a public record of 915 total applications spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 877 disposed applications, 701 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 80%. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 71% to 83%, reflecting variation in outcomes within the technology center. This pooled figure aggregates decisions across multiple art units and represents the examiner's historical record rather than a prediction of outcomes in any future application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines statistics across multiple art units under one technology center. The overall allowance rate of 80% describes past decisions on 877 disposed applications and is not a prediction applicable to any specific case. The range of 71% to 83% across art units illustrates that individual art-unit records may differ. Pooled figures are historical summaries; outcomes in any particular application depend on claim scope, prior art, and arguments presented.

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 2196
686 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION537 / 111 / 38allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.2 moart unit avg 27.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.8 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW78%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 275 decided applications with an interview and 373 without.

ART UNIT 2194
215 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION153 / 62 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37.4 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.9 moart unit avg 43.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW51%+41 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 107 decided applications with an interview and 108 without.

ART UNIT 2126
14 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION11 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.6 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.1 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Diem K Cao

  • What is Examiner Cao's overall allowance rate?
    80% on 877 disposed applications across all art units in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2126, 2194, and 2196, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 83% across these art units, reflecting variation among them.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled record is a historical summary and is not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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 Diem K Cao 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: 915 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