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

Examiner Tim T Vo

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 214 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner Tim T Vo has allowed 167 of 214 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

78% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2112 · 96%AU 2138 · 91%AU 2185 · 17%AU 2111 · 29%AU 2168 · 22%AU 2189 · 89%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Tim T Vo maintains a pooled allowance rate of 78% across 214 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans six art units: 2111, 2112, 2138, 2168, 2185, and 2189. Of the 214 decided applications, 167 were allowed and 47 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 17% to 96%. This aggregate figure reflects the examiner's combined record and does not predict outcomes on any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled allowance rate aggregates results across multiple art units into a single historical figure. This 78% rate reflects past dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications—and describes what has occurred, not what will occur on any future filing. The range (17% to 96%) indicates variation among the individual art units within the examiner's portfolio. Aggregate statistics characterize an examiner's past record; they are not predictive of specific application outcomes.

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 2112
94 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring, and error-correcting coding/decoding.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 89%
DISPOSITION90 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 21.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.6 moart unit avg 31.8 mo
ART UNIT 2138
69 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

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

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION59 / 6 / 4allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.9 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.5 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility9% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2185
23 APPS · 17% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
17% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION4 / 19 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.5 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.6 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility6% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%

Based on 23 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2111
14 APPS · 29% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
29% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION4 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.2 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility9% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%

Based on 14 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2168
9 APPS · 22% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

22% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION2 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.4 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.1 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2189
9 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION8 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.8 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.9 moart unit avg 39 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Tim T Vo

  • What is Tim T Vo's overall allowance rate?
    78% across 214 disposed applications in TC 2100. This represents 167 allowed and 47 abandoned applications pooled across all six art units in his record.
  • How many art units does Tim T Vo cover?
    Six art units: 2111, 2112, 2138, 2168, 2185, and 2189, all within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 17% to 96% across the examiner's six art units. This range reflects variation in the record among different art units but does not identify which specific art unit corresponds to any specific rate.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past decisions and are not predictions of any individual 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 Tim T Vo 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: 218 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