LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/LAN-HUONG TRUONG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Lan-Huong Truong

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 665 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
91%vs 83% art-unit average+8 pts
higher than about 96% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Lan-Huong Truong has allowed 608 of 665 decided applications.

608 allowed
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Lan-Huong Truong's public record spans a single art unit within Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate is 91 percent. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed or abandoned among all decided (non-pending) cases in the examiner's pooled record. The 91 percent rate describes the examiner's past dispositions and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application under examination.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's art units. An aggregate allowance rate describes historical outcomes across many cases and reflects past patterns only. Aggregate figures are not predictions of individual application outcomes and do not account for claim scope, prior art, or other case-specific factors. Each application is examined independently.

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 2464
703 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 96% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464
AU avg 83%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2464; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition665 decided applications

608 allowed
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.7mo
disposed 28.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.8 mo, disposed 35.7 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
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

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 218 decided applications with an interview and 447 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Lan-Huong Truong

  • What is Lan-Huong Truong's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 91 percent, calculated as allowed and abandoned applications divided by all decided applications in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans 1 art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This aggregate rate describes past decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application. Each application is examined on its individual merits.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Lan-Huong Truong 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: 703 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