LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/THU V HUYNH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Thu V Huynh

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 593 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Thu V Huynh has allowed 358 of 593 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

60% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2177 · 52%AU 2178 · 64%AU 2145 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Thu V Huynh has a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 593 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 358 and abandoned 235, yielding a 60% allowance rate. Allowance rates across the three art units range from 52% to 94%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure aggregates different subject areas within TC 2100 and represents historical disposition data only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and does not isolate performance in any single art unit or subject matter. The overall allowance rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across art units is common and reflects differences in art-unit composition and application characteristics, not examiner conduct. Pooled data provides context for an examiner's overall record only.

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
344 APPS · 52% ALLOWANCE
52% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION180 / 164 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.9 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55.4 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW68%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW30%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 205 decided applications with an interview and 139 without.

ART UNIT 2178
185 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE
64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION118 / 67 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.1 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.9 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW38%+50 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 97 decided applications with an interview and 88 without.

ART UNIT 2145
64 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION60 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.3 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)56%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness65%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 42 decided applications with an interview and 22 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Thu V Huynh

  • What is Examiner Thu V Huynh's overall allowance rate?
    60%, calculated over 593 disposed applications (358 allowed, 235 abandoned). This figure pools outcomes across all art units and represents historical data only—not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units (2145, 2177, 2178) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across this examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 52% to 94% across the three art units. This variation is typical and reflects differences in application and art-unit characteristics.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict outcomes in a specific art unit?
    No. The pooled figure aggregates different art units and is historical in nature. Allowance rates by individual art unit may differ materially from the pooled rate. Individual art-unit records are available separately.
◈ 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 Thu V Huynh 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: 593 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