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

Examiner Hua Lu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 609 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 Hua Lu has allowed 432 of 609 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

71% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2171 · 67%AU 2118 · 83%AU 2144 · 68%AU 2192 · 82%AU 2154 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Hua Lu maintains a pooled allowance rate of 71% across 609 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's record spans five art units: 2118, 2144, 2154, 2171, and 2192. Of 683 total applications, 432 were allowed and 177 were abandoned. Allowance rates across these art units range from 67% to 83%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate and range. The aggregate allowance rate describes the examiner's historical decisions on disposed applications and is not a prediction of outcome on any specific case. The range shows that allowance rates vary by art unit. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding an examiner's overall record but do not account for the particular facts, claims, or arguments in any single application.

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 2171
435 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE
67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION293 / 142 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility30% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW55%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 260 decided applications with an interview and 175 without.

ART UNIT 2118
210 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE
83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION113 / 23 / 74allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness26%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 66 decided applications with an interview and 70 without.

ART UNIT 2144
25 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION17 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION12 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.9 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%

Based on 25 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2192
11 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines software engineering.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION9 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37.8 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.4 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2154
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION0 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION41.1 moart unit avg 27.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.5 moart unit avg 41.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hua Lu

  • What is Examiner Hua Lu's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 71%, based on 609 disposed applications (432 allowed, 177 abandoned) pooled across all five art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Lu has a record spanning five art units in TC 2100: 2118, 2144, 2154, 2171, and 2192.
  • What range of allowance rates appears across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 67% to 83% across the art units with substantial records.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record describes the examiner's aggregate past decisions and is not a prediction of any individual application's outcome. Actual results depend on claim scope, prior art, applicant responses, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Hua Lu 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: 683 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