LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HOANG-CHUONG Q VU
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Hoang-Chuong Q Vu

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 732 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
79%vs 82% weighted peer average3 pts

Examiner Hoang-Chuong Q Vu has allowed 580 of 732 decided applications.

580 allowed
152 abandoned
Plus 32 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (82%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2476 · 81%AU 2419 · 39%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Hoang-Chuong Q Vu maintains a pooled allowance rate of 79% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 81% across these art units, reflecting variation in the composition of applications decided in each unit. This pooled figure represents the percentage of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates allowance data from multiple art units within TC 2400. The overall 79% rate describes the examiner's historical record across all decided applications in those units combined. Aggregate figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art-unit records may differ from the pooled average and are available separately.

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.2 art units

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 2476
741 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

81%
higher than about 40% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition709 decided applications

571 allowed
138 abandoned
Plus 32 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.1mo
disposed 36.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.6 mo, disposed 39 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 19
17%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
77%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%

Interview benefit

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

without
79%
+6 pts
with
85%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 158 decided applications with an interview and 551 without.

ART UNIT 2419
23 APPS · 39% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

39%
higher than about 22% of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition23 decided applications

9 allowed
14 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.9mo
disposed 40.8mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 31.1 mo, disposed 44.4 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hoang-Chuong Q Vu

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 79% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    This examiner's record covers 2 art units within TC 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 81% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in the applications decided in each unit.
  • Is the pooled rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled figure describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree 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 Hoang-Chuong Q Vu 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: 764 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