LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/VAN H NGUYEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Van H Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,245 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 Van H Nguyen has allowed 1,107 of 1,245 decided applications (89%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

89% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2199 · 92%AU 2194 · 83%AU 2196 · 90%AU 2126 · 60%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Van H Nguyen has a public record spanning four art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 1,245 disposed applications, 1,107 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 89%. The record reflects the examiner's work across art units 2126, 2194, 2196, and 2199. Allowance rates across these art units range from 60% to 92%, reflecting variation in the mix of applications and outcomes within each unit's subject matter.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is pooled across multiple art units and represents aggregated outcomes from the past. The overall allowance rate describes historical results, not a prediction about any specific application. Pooled figures combine different art units with potentially different applicant bases, technologies, and claim types. Individual art-unit records provide more granular context and are published separately on this site.

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 2199
844 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and program control and execution.

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION743 / 65 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.4 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.4 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)74%
§103 — Obviousness52% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW85%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 403 decided applications with an interview and 405 without.

ART UNIT 2194
326 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION272 / 54 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION35.4 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.4 moart unit avg 43.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)25%
§103 — Obviousness0% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness25%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 185 decided applications with an interview and 141 without.

ART UNIT 2196
86 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION77 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION38.3 moart unit avg 27.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)37%
§103 — Obviousness21% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 35 decided applications with an interview and 51 without.

ART UNIT 2126
25 APPS · 60% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

60% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION15 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.3 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.3 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Van H Nguyen

  • What is Van H Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    89% of 1,245 decided applications were allowed, pooled across all four art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units: 2126, 2194, 2196, and 2199, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 60% to 92% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does this pooled record predict my application's outcome?
    No. This is a historical aggregate. Individual applications vary by claim scope, prior art, and art unit. Consult the separate per-art-unit record for your specific technology area.
◈ 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 Van H Nguyen 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: 1,281 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