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

Examiner Han V Doan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 226 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Han V Doan has allowed 190 of 226 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2136 · 82%AU 2137 · 100%AU 2186 · 62%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Han V Doan maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 226 disposed applications, the examiner issued allowances in 190 cases, for an overall allowance rate of 84%. Across the examiner's art units, allowance rates range from 82% to 100%. The record spans art units 2136, 2137, and 2186. A total of 36 applications were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and describes historical dispositions only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile reports the examiner's pooled allowance rate—a historical aggregate across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 84% figure describes past decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance rates vary across art units (82% to 100%), reflecting differences in subject matter and prosecution patterns within the technology center. Pooled statistics describe the record as a whole and do not forecast results in any individual case.

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 2136
177 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 60%
DISPOSITION146 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 27.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.7 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility37% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 97 decided applications with an interview and 80 without.

ART UNIT 2137
56 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

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

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION36 / 0 / 20allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.6 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.2 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%
ART UNIT 2186
13 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION8 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness31%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Han V Doan

  • What is Examiner Han V Doan's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 84% across 226 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100. This figure represents historical allowances and abandonment decisions and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Examiner Doan maintains a public record across 3 art units (2136, 2137, and 2186) within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates differ across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 82% to 100%. Variations reflect differences in prosecution patterns and subject matter within the technology center. These are historical rates and do not predict outcomes in any specific case.
◈ 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 Han V Doan 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: 246 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