LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MERILYN P NGUYEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Merilyn P Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 874 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Merilyn P Nguyen has allowed 759 of 874 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2153 · 93%AU 2163 · 79%AU 2171 · 56%AU 2161 · 64%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Merilyn P Nguyen maintains a public record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 874 disposed applications, 759 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 87%. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 79% to 93%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes from multiple art units and reflects historical disposition data only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines allowance rates across multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. This aggregate describes past dispositions and does not constitute a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range reflects variation among individual art units; the overall rate represents the examiner's combined record across all units worked.

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 2153
556 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION501 / 38 / 17allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.4 moart unit avg 27.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.2 moart unit avg 41.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness38% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 225 decided applications with an interview and 314 without.

ART UNIT 2163
306 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION241 / 65 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.9 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.2 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)84%
§103 — Obviousness54% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW79%-2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 62 decided applications with an interview and 244 without.

ART UNIT 2171
18 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION10 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.6 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.7 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
ART UNIT 2161
11 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION7 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.1 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.1 moart unit avg 39 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Merilyn P Nguyen

  • What is Merilyn P Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 87%, based on 759 allowed applications among 874 disposed applications in the public record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 4 art units: 2153, 2161, 2163, and 2171, all within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across the art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the art units range from 79% to 93%, reflecting variation in outcomes by individual art unit.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Merilyn P Nguyen 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: 891 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