LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/KIEU OANH T BUI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kieu Oanh T Bui

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 473 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
86%vs 68% weighted peer average+18 pts

Examiner Kieu Oanh T Bui has allowed 408 of 473 decided applications.

408 allowed
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (68%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2425 · 86%AU 2421 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Kieu Oanh T Bui maintains a public record across 2 art units within Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 86%, measured as allowed applications divided by all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications in the pooled record. This figure reflects historical outcomes on applications that have reached a final disposition and does not include pending applications. The examiner's record spans multiple art units, and the aggregate allowance rate represents outcomes pooled across these areas of assignment.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across 2 art units. The allowance rate of 86% describes the examiner's historical outcomes on decided applications—those with final disposition—and is not a prediction about any specific pending application. Aggregate statistics describe past performance across diverse art units and do not forecast results in individual cases. Art-unit-specific records may differ materially from pooled figures.

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 2425
472 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 78% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2425
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2425; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition472 decided applications

408 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.8mo
disposed 34mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 18.9 mo, disposed 36.3 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 24
8%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
70%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
55%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
11%

Interview benefit

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

without
85%
+8 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 402 without.

ART UNIT 2421
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% 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.

Disposition1 decided applications

1 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 31.5mo
disposed 38.6mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 mo, disposed 40.3 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kieu Oanh T Bui

  • What is Examiner Bui's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 86%, calculated from allowed and abandoned applications across all decided cases in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • What does this allowance rate mean for my application?
    This is a historical aggregate of decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific pending application. Individual outcomes depend on application-specific facts and the substantive merits.
  • Does the pooled rate apply to my art unit?
    This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units. Art-unit-specific allowance rates may differ and appear in the per-art-unit detail section.
◈ 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.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 Kieu Oanh T Bui 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: 473 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