LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/TUAN C. DAO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Tuan C. Dao

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 894 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 Tuan C. Dao has allowed 750 of 894 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 87%AU 2194 · 77%AU 2198 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Tuan C. Dao's public record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 894 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 750, yielding an overall allowance rate of 84%. The allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 77% to 94%. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not characterize performance on any single application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that masks unit-by-unit variation. The 84% figure is a historical summary of decided cases and is not a prediction of how any given application will be examined. Individual art-unit rates may differ materially from the pool. For analysis of specific art units, refer to the per-unit breakdown section of this profile.

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 2193
454 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION395 / 59 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.9 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.8 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness20%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 173 decided applications with an interview and 281 without.

ART UNIT 2194
337 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION258 / 79 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.7 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.9 moart unit avg 43.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 140 decided applications with an interview and 197 without.

ART UNIT 2198
145 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION97 / 6 / 42allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.9 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.5 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 44 decided applications with an interview and 59 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Tuan C. Dao

  • What is Examiner Dao's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner allowed 750 of 894 disposed applications, for an overall allowance rate of 84%.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 3 art units (2193, 2194, 2198) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 77% to 94% across the examiner's art units. The pooled 84% figure masks this variation.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe the examiner's past record and are not predictions 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 Tuan C. Dao 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: 936 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