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

Examiner Mai T Tran

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 333 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Mai T Tran has allowed 233 of 333 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2129 · 62%AU 2122 · 80%AU 2124 · 69%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mai T Tran maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 333 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 70%, with 233 allowed and 100 abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 62% to 80% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units in TC 2100. The overall 70% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all decided applications in the examiner's record and is not a prediction for any specific application. Aggregated figures mask differences between individual art units; detailed breakdowns by art unit are available separately. Past disposal patterns do not predict future decisions.

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 2129
156 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION96 / 60 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.8 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility85% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)54%
§103 — Obviousness38% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW64%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW59%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 76 decided applications with an interview and 80 without.

ART UNIT 2122
135 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION108 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.6 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.2 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility62% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW75%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 88 without.

ART UNIT 2124
42 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION29 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.6 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 42 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mai T Tran

  • What is Mai T Tran's overall allowance rate?
    70% across 333 disposed applications (233 allowed, 100 abandoned). This aggregates the examiner's record in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    3 art units (2122, 2124, 2129) within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 62% to 80% across the examiner's art units. Individual art-unit breakdowns are provided separately.
◈ 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 Mai T Tran 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: 333 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