LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/LINDA TANG HUYNH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Linda Tang Huynh

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 262 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 Linda Tang Huynh has allowed 105 of 262 decided applications (40%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

40% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 35%AU 2172 · 73%AU 2175 · 25%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Linda Tang Huynh maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 262 decided applications, her allowance rate stands at 40%. This reflects 105 allowed applications and 157 abandoned applications. The allowance rate varies across her art units, ranging from 25% to 73%. This record aggregates her work across different subject areas within TC 2100 and describes outcomes on applications already decided.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, providing a broad view of an examiner's historical record in a technology center. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions on closed applications and is not predictive of outcomes on any specific pending application. Variations across individual art units may reflect differences in subject matter or application complexity within the technology center. Art-unit-specific records appear in separate sections.

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 2145
151 APPS · 35% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

35% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION53 / 98 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness84%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW46%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW13%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 99 decided applications with an interview and 52 without.

ART UNIT 2172
92 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE
73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION37 / 14 / 41allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness87%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+26 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 18 without.

ART UNIT 2175
60 APPS · 25% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

25% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION15 / 45 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.4 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.2 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW39%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW10%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 29 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Linda Tang Huynh

  • What is Linda Tang Huynh's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 40% across 262 decided applications pooled from her work in TC 2100.
  • How many art units has Linda Tang Huynh worked in?
    She has a record across 3 art units (2145, 2172, 2175) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does her allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Her allowance rates range from 25% to 73% across her art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within TC 2100.
  • What does this record tell me about my application?
    This pooled record describes past outcomes on decided applications. It is not a prediction of the outcome on any specific pending 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 Linda Tang Huynh 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: 303 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