Examiner Lynda Dinh has allowed 39 of 55 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Lynda Dinh maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning 2 art units: 2163 and 2193. Across 55 disposed applications, her allowance rate is 71%, comprising 39 allowed and 16 abandoned applications. The pooled figure reflects the examiner's combined record across both art units and represents only decided cases; it is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
This pooled record aggregates activity across 2 separate art units in TC 2100. The allowance rate of 71% describes past dispositions and is a statistical summary of all decided applications handled by this examiner across both units combined. Pooled figures do not predict the outcome of any individual application. For art-unit-specific data, consult the separate per-unit 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 →
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.
Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Based on 5 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Lynda Dinh 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: 55 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