LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/LE HIEN LUU
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Le Hien Luu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 240 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
79%vs 55% weighted peer average+24 pts

Examiner Le Hien Luu has allowed 189 of 240 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed189abandoned51pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (55%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2141 · 79%AU 2152 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Patent Examiner Le Hien Luu maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning 2 art units. Across hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate stands at 79%. This figure reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned among all decided cases in the examiner's pooled record. The record covers work across multiple art-unit assignments within TC 2100. This pooled statistic describes past outcomes and does not predict results on any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across 2 art units within TC 2100. The 79% allowance rate is a historical average—a summary of past decisions across all applications decided by this examiner in those units combined. Pooled figures describe aggregate outcomes, not performance on any specific application or art unit. They do not forecast the disposition of any pending or future 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 2141
238 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION187 / 51 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.8 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.9 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW75%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 200 without.

ART UNIT 2152
2 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION2 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION5.5 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY14 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Le Hien Luu

  • What is Examiner Luu's overall allowance rate?
    Across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units, the allowance rate is 79%.
  • How many art units does Examiner Luu work in?
    The examiner's public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2100.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) in the examiner's pooled record. It does not include pending applications and does not predict outcomes on any individual case.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    This pooled statistic summarizes past outcomes across multiple art units and does not predict the result on any specific application.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Le Hien Luu 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 July 14, 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: 240 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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