LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ANGELIE THIEN THAN NGO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Angelie Thien Than Ngo

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 63 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
76%vs 58% art-unit average+18 pts
higher than about 67% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Angelie Thien Than Ngo has allowed 48 of 63 decided applications.

48 allowed
15 abandoned
Plus 48 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Angelie Thien Than Ngo maintains a public record across Technology Center 2400, spanning 1 art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 76%. This rate reflects the proportion of applications that were allowed out of all decided applications (allowed and abandoned), pooled across the examiner's art units. The record covers applications in the technology center and represents the examiner's historical disposition of cases brought to final decision.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across the examiner's art units, presenting an overall allowance rate derived from past decided applications. The 76% figure describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction about any specific application. Pooled rates mask variation between individual art units; applicants examining detailed records by art unit may find different rates within the examiner's portfolio. Aggregate statistics reflect past patterns 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 →

The record, art unit by art unit.1 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 2416
111 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 67% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition63 decided applications

48 allowed
15 abandoned
Plus 48 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 25.2mo
disposed 39.6mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility
AU 32
28%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
79%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 78
97%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
64%

Interview benefit

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

without
67%
+18 pts
with
85%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 30 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Angelie Thien Than Ngo

  • What is Examiner Angelie Thien Than Ngo's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 76%, calculated from all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across art units. This is a historical statistic and is not a prediction for any individual application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate measures the percentage of decided applications that were allowed, excluding pending cases. It is calculated from applications brought to final decision (allowed or abandoned) and reflects the examiner's historical record, not a prediction.
  • Is this rate representative of all my applications?
    No. The pooled rate aggregates across art units and does not forecast outcomes for any specific application. Results vary by art unit, technology, and claim language.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Angelie Thien Than Ngo has a public record within Technology Center 2400. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated July 22, 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: 111 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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