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

Examiner Toan H Vu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 636 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Toan H Vu has allowed 535 of 636 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2141 · 71%AU 2177 · 94%AU 2178 · 96%AU 2174 · 20%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Toan H Vu maintains a public record across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 636 disposed applications, the allowance rate is 84%. The examiner's record spans multiple art units (2141, 2174, 2177, 2178), and allowance rates across these units range from 71% to 96%. Of 672 total applications, 535 were allowed and 101 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all four art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile presents a pooled record—a single aggregate allowance rate across multiple art units. The 84% figure reflects decided cases (allowed plus abandoned) and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application. Pooled data masks variation among individual art units; the 71% to 96% range illustrates that outcomes differ by art unit. Historical statistics describe past performance and are not forecasts of future dispositions.

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 2141
276 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION197 / 79 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.9 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.1 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW84%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW57%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 149 decided applications with an interview and 127 without.

ART UNIT 2177
199 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE
94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION188 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.6 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY22.4 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility30% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness16%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW96%-7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 163 without.

ART UNIT 2178
192 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE
96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION149 / 7 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.3 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness53% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness19%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 129 without.

ART UNIT 2174
5 APPS · 20% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
20% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION1 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.4 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility60% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)40%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%

Based on 5 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Toan H Vu

  • What is Examiner Vu's overall allowance rate?
    84% over 636 disposed applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2141, 2174, 2177, 2178) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 71% to 96% across the examiner's art units.
  • Is the 84% figure a prediction for my application?
    No. It is a historical aggregate and does not predict the outcome of any specific application.
◈ 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 Toan H 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: 672 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