LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HOANG VU A NGUYEN BA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Hoang Vu A Nguyen Ba

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 582 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
85%vs 59% weighted peer average+26 pts

Examiner Hoang Vu A Nguyen Ba has allowed 496 of 582 decided applications.

496 allowed
86 abandoned
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (59%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2421 · 83%AU 2423 · 91%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Hoang Vu A Nguyen Ba maintains an allowance rate of 85% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate—the share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) that were allowed—ranges from 83% to 91% across these art units. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's overall record and does not describe any single art unit or predict outcomes in any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2400. The overall allowance rate of 85% describes the examiner's historical record across all decided applications in those units combined. Pooled figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions for any particular application. Art-unit-specific rates may differ from the pooled rate and appear in separate detail sections of this page.

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 2421
442 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 82% of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 28 examiners with published rates in art unit 2421; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 29 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 28 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition442 decided applications

368 allowed
74 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26.7mo
disposed 44.4mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 mo, disposed 40.3 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 23
27%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
56%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
17%

Interview benefit

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

without
82%
+8 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 86 decided applications with an interview and 356 without.

ART UNIT 2423
140 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 94% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2423
AU avg 52%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2423; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition140 decided applications

128 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 11.1mo
disposed 24.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.1 mo, disposed 39.5 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 34
74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
73%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 91
90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
39%

Interview benefit

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

without
88%
+10 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 49 decided applications with an interview and 91 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hoang Vu A Nguyen Ba

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    85% of decided applications were allowed, across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 83% to 91% across the examiner's art units. Individual art-unit rates appear in separate sections of this page.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Vu A Nguyen Ba 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: 582 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