LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/QUOC A TRAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Quoc A Tran

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 932 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 Quoc A Tran has allowed 738 of 932 decided applications (79%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

79% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2177 · 82%AU 2145 · 95%AU 2176 · 55%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Quoc A Tran maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 932 disposed applications, 738 were allowed, yielding a 79% allowance rate. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 55% to 95%. This pooled figure reflects decided cases—allowed and abandoned applications—and excludes pending matters. The breadth of the record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, each with its own allowance-rate profile.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate rather than unit-specific figures. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical decisions across all assigned art units and is a statistical summary of past outcomes. The pooled allowance rate is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition. Variation across individual art units may reflect differences in subject matter complexity, applicant argument patterns, or examiner assignment. Detailed per-art-unit data appears separately.

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 2177
562 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE
82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION460 / 102 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.3 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility41% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 317 decided applications with an interview and 245 without.

ART UNIT 2145
216 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION177 / 10 / 29allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.7 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility68% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 97 decided applications with an interview and 90 without.

ART UNIT 2176
183 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION101 / 82 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.6 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY61.9 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)33%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW31%+46 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 96 decided applications with an interview and 87 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Quoc A Tran

  • What is Quoc A Tran's overall allowance rate?
    79% of 932 disposed applications were allowed. This pooled rate covers all art units in the examiner's record and reflects decided cases only; pending applications are excluded.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100: 2145, 2176, and 2177.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Across these art units, the allowance rate ranges from 55% to 95%. Per-art-unit detail is available in the separate art-unit section.
  • What does this pooled record include?
    The pooled record aggregates 961 total applications, of which 932 were disposed (738 allowed, 194 abandoned). This is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any individual application.
◈ 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 Quoc A 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: 961 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