LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MIRANDA M HUANG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Miranda M Huang

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 278 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 Miranda M Huang has allowed 170 of 278 decided applications (61%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

61% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2157 · 66%AU 2124 · 59%AU 2125 · 38%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Miranda M Huang has a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 278 disposed applications, she allowed 170, resulting in an overall allowance rate of 61%. The allowance rate ranges from 38% to 66% across her art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within the technology center. This pooled figure represents historical dispositions and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units in TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 61% describes past dispositions across all art units combined. Because the record spans different art units with different allowance rates (ranging from 38% to 66%), the aggregate figure masks variation among them. Pooled statistics describe historical record only and are not predictions of outcomes in any individual application.

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 2157
186 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION122 / 64 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.7 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.9 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW39%+41 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 120 decided applications with an interview and 66 without.

ART UNIT 2124
77 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

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

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION37 / 26 / 14allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.8 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility66% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW31%+56 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 32 without.

ART UNIT 2125
29 APPS · 38% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

38% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION11 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.2 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%

Based on 29 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Miranda M Huang

  • What is Miranda M Huang's overall allowance rate?
    61% across 278 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2124, 2125, and 2157, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 38% to 66% across these art units, reflecting variation in historical dispositions.
  • Does the 61% rate apply to my application?
    No. This pooled figure describes past 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 Miranda M Huang 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: 292 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