LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HUY THANH NGUYEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Huy Thanh Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 812 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
86%vs 66% art-unit average+20 pts
higher than about 79% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Huy Thanh Nguyen has allowed 695 of 812 decided applications.

695 allowed
117 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Huy Thanh Nguyen maintains a public record across 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 86%, measured across hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned). This rate reflects the proportion of applications that received a final disposition—either allowance or abandonment—and does not include pending applications. The 86% figure represents the examiner's overall record in this technology center and is derived from the complete set of decided cases across all assigned art units.

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across all art units within TC 2400. The pooled allowance rate of 86% describes the examiner's historical disposition pattern and reflects past outcomes on decided applications only. Aggregate figures do not constitute a prediction about any specific application. Different art units may have distinct subject matter and procedural patterns; this pooled view combines all assigned work and serves as general reference data 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 2481
812 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 79% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2481; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition812 decided applications

695 allowed
117 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.7mo
disposed 30.7mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.5 mo, disposed 40.2 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 24
34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
46%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
63%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
15%

Interview benefit

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

without
85%
+13 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 48 decided applications with an interview and 764 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Huy Thanh Nguyen

  • What is the overall allowance rate for this examiner?
    The pooled allowance rate is 86%, based on decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across all assigned art units. Pending applications are excluded from this calculation.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner is assigned to 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does an allowance rate of 86% predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Aggregate allowance rates describe past dispositions and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, specification, and prosecution history.
  • What technology center does this examiner work in?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2400, based on the technology-center assignment shown in the public record.
◈ 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.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 Huy Thanh Nguyen 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: 812 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