LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Thanh T Vu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 810 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 Thanh T Vu has allowed 602 of 810 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2175 · 69%AU 2179 · 97%AU 2174 · 51%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Thanh T Vu maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 810 disposed applications, 602 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 74%. The record spans art units 2174, 2175, and 2179. Allowance rates across these art units range from 51% to 97%, reflecting variation in the examiner's decided applications within the technology center. This pooled figure aggregates all three art units and describes the examiner's historical record.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines disposal and allowance data across multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The 74% allowance rate reflects past outcomes across all three art units and is not a prediction of any specific application. The range of 51% to 97% indicates that allowance rates vary among the individual art units. This pooled snapshot describes historical record only; outcomes in any particular case depend on claim scope, prior art, and application-specific facts.

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 2175
533 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

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

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION369 / 164 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.3 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 141 decided applications with an interview and 392 without.

ART UNIT 2179
231 APPS · 97% ALLOWANCE
97% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION192 / 5 / 34allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.1 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.6 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 80 decided applications with an interview and 117 without.

ART UNIT 2174
80 APPS · 51% ALLOWANCE
51% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION41 / 39 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.2 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.6 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW39%+44 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 23 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Thanh T Vu

  • What is Examiner Vu's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 74%, based on 602 allowed applications out of 810 disposed applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Examiner Vu has a public record across three art units (2174, 2175, 2179) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 51% to 97%, indicating variation in outcomes within the technology center.
  • Is the 74% figure a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes past outcomes 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 Thanh T Vu 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: 844 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