LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/HIEP T NGUYEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Hiep T Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 1,523 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Hiep T Nguyen has allowed 1,449 of 1,523 decided applications (95%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

95% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 94%AU 2137 · 98%AU 2131 · 95%AU 2188 · 96%AU 2138 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Hiep T Nguyen maintains a public record spanning five art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 1,523 disposed applications, the allowance rate is 95%. This figure represents a pooled aggregate: 1,449 allowed applications and 74 abandoned applications. The allowance rate varies across the five art units, ranging from 94% to 98%. This range reflects differences in outcomes among the individual art units, though the pooled figure of 95% describes the overall record across TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes from multiple art units within TC 2100, presenting a single allowance rate across the examiner's entire portfolio in the technology center. The allowance rate describes past decisions on disposed applications and is not a prediction of outcomes on any specific future application. Applicants may review the per-art-unit detail separately to identify the particular art unit handling their matter and observe variation within the examiner's record.

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 2187
584 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION547 / 37 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.2 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.5 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)21%
§103 — Obviousness29% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%
ART UNIT 2137
327 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

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

98% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION297 / 7 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.5 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY22.1 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)29%
§103 — Obviousness42% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 60 decided applications with an interview and 244 without.

ART UNIT 2131
258 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

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

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION245 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.7 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.6 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)36%
§103 — Obviousness58% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW94%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 219 without.

ART UNIT 2188
243 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION234 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.9 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.7 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)35%
§103 — Obviousness41% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%
ART UNIT 2138
134 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

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

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION126 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.4 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.6 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)44%
§103 — Obviousness44% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hiep T Nguyen

  • What is Examiner Hiep T Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 95%, calculated from 1,449 allowed applications and 74 abandoned applications across 1,523 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record spans five art units (2131, 2137, 2138, 2187, 2188) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 94% to 98% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by individual art unit.
  • What does this pooled record describe?
    This pooled record aggregates all disposed applications across five art units and is a description of past outcomes, 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 Hiep T Nguyen 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: 1,546 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