LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HUAN V DOAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Huan V Doan

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 512 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
88%vs 72% weighted peer average+16 pts

Examiner Huan V Doan has allowed 452 of 512 decided applications.

452 allowed
Plus 20 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (72%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2499 · 96%AU 2437 · 84%AU 2496 · 70%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Huan V Doan maintains an 88% allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 3 art units. Allowance rates across these art units range from 70% to 96%. This pooled figure represents the percentage of applications in the decided category (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending applications. The range reflects variation in the examiner's allowance rates across different art units within the technology center.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing a single allowance rate that describes past decisions in aggregate. This overall figure is a historical measure and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Variation across art units reflects differences in subject matter, application complexity, and examiner decisions within each unit. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding an examiner's general record but do not apply uniformly to every application.

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.3 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 2499
267 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

96%
higher than 14 of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2499
AU avg 80%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 16 examiners with published rates in art unit 2499; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 17 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 16 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition247 decided applications

237 allowed
Plus 20 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.9mo
disposed 26.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 32.6 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 27
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
91%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

Interview benefit

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

without
95%
+2 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 136 decided applications with an interview and 111 without.

ART UNIT 2437
209 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

84%
higher than about 76% of the 42 examiners with published rates in art unit 2437
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 42 examiners with published rates in art unit 2437; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 44 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 42 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition209 decided applications

176 allowed
33 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.8mo
disposed 31.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.8 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 51
54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%

Interview benefit

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

without
55%
+40 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 154 decided applications with an interview and 55 without.

ART UNIT 2496
56 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

70%
higher than about 29% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496
AU avg 67%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2496; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 35 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 34 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition56 decided applications

39 allowed
17 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.2mo
disposed 40.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.6 mo, disposed 36.2 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 43
44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
67%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 91
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
62%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Huan V Doan

  • What is Huan V Doan's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 88% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 70% to 96% across the examiner's art units.
◈ 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.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 Huan V Doan 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: 532 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