Examiner Ngoc V Dinh has allowed 233 of 258 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Ngoc V Dinh maintains a pooled allowance rate of 90% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's record spans 4 art units within this technology center. Across these art units, the allowance rate ranges from 84% to 96%. This pooled figure represents the proportion of applications in the examiner's decided record—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. The range reflects variation in outcomes by art unit; the aggregate allowance rate describes the examiner's past disposition pattern across all covered art units.
A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, masking variation that may exist within individual subject areas. The overall allowance rate of 90% is a historical summary and is not a prediction of the outcome in any specific application. Individual art units may show different rates; a separate section of this page provides per-art-unit data. Pooled figures are most useful for understanding an examiner's general disposition pattern across a broad portfolio, not for assessing a particular prosecution.
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 computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 82 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Ngoc V 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 July 14, 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: 258 applications.
Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.
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