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

Examiner Tanh Q Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 540 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Tanh Q Nguyen has allowed 325 of 540 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

60% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2182 · 61%AU 2118 · 51%AU 2187 · 74%AU 2116 · 53%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Tanh Q Nguyen maintains a public record of 540 disposed applications across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided cases, 325 were allowed and 215 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 60% across all pooled art units. The allowance rate ranges from 51% to 74% among the art units in which this examiner has a substantial record, reflecting variation in outcomes across different subject areas within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's record aggregates applications across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 60% describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Allowance rates vary by art unit (51% to 74%), so an applicant's experience may differ from the overall figure depending on the particular art unit assigned.

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 2182
268 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

61% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION163 / 105 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.8 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.6 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness83%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW49%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%-16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 201 without.

ART UNIT 2118
109 APPS · 51% ALLOWANCE
51% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION56 / 53 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.8 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness90%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW40%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 46 decided applications with an interview and 63 without.

ART UNIT 2187
93 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION69 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.6 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.9 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness97%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW70%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 60 decided applications with an interview and 33 without.

ART UNIT 2116
70 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

53% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION37 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.8 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)56%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness85%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW47%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW55%-8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Tanh Q Nguyen

  • What is Examiner Tanh Q Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    60% of 540 disposed applications were allowed. This figure pools all art units and describes the past record only; it is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Nguyen has a public record across 4 art units (2116, 2118, 2182, 2187) within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 51% to 74% among the art units with substantial records. The overall pooled rate is 60%.
  • What is the difference between 'disposed' and 'total' applications?
    Disposed applications (540) are those that have reached a final decision—either allowed or abandoned. Total applications may include pending cases. The allowance rate is calculated only from disposed applications.
◈ 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 Tanh Q 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: 540 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