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

Examiner Than Vinh Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,431 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 Than Vinh Nguyen has allowed 1,326 of 1,431 decided applications (93%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

93% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2138 · 95%AU 2187 · 90%AU 2188 · 90%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Patent Examiner Than Vinh Nguyen maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,431 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 93%, with 1,326 allowed and 105 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 90% to 95% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates dispositions across multiple art-unit assignments and does not represent a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data across all art units where an examiner has worked. The aggregate allowance rate (93% here) describes historical outcomes across different subject areas and does not forecast outcomes in specific cases. Individual art units within TC 2100 show variation (90% to 95%), indicating the examiner's record is not uniform. Pooled statistics are descriptive of past work, not predictive tools for pending applications.

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 2138
760 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION699 / 36 / 25allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.4 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.8 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness34% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 127 decided applications with an interview and 608 without.

ART UNIT 2187
489 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION440 / 49 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness33% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 462 without.

ART UNIT 2188
207 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION187 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.6 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.5 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness42% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Than Vinh Nguyen

  • What is Examiner Than Vinh Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    Over 1,431 decided applications, the allowance rate is 93%, meaning 1,326 were allowed and 105 were abandoned.
  • How many art units has this examiner worked in?
    The examiner has a record across three art units: 2138, 2187, and 2188, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 90% to 95% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in the historical record across different subject areas within the technology center.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled data describes past outcomes aggregated across all art units and is not a prediction for any specific pending application. Individual application outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Than Vinh 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: 1,456 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