LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/MANG BOI THAWNG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mang Boi Thawng

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 93 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
94%vs 82% art-unit average+12 pts
higher than about 92% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Mang Boi Thawng has allowed 87 of 93 decided applications.

87 allowed
Plus 28 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Mang Boi Thawng maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400, spanning one art unit. Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 94%, meaning that of all applications with final dispositions (allowed and abandoned combined), 94% resulted in allowance. This figure represents the examiner's historical record pooled across all art units and reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final resolution. The allowance rate is a descriptive statistic of past decisions and does not constitute a prediction of any specific application's outcome.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates examination activity across all of the examiner's art units. The pooled allowance rate describes what happened on applications already decided—those receiving either allowance or abandonment. Aggregate figures reflect historical patterns and do not predict the result of any particular application. Individual art units may show different rates; consult the per-art-unit section for unit-specific data.

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 2476
121 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

94%
higher than about 92% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2476; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition93 decided applications

87 allowed
Plus 28 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 26mo
disposed 36.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.6 mo, disposed 39 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 19
9%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
42%

Interview benefit

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

without
94%
2 pts
with
92%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mang Boi Thawng

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    94% across dozens of decided applications pooled from all art units. This is the share of allowed applications among all applications with final dispositions (allowed plus abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    One art unit. The record shown here is pooled across that single art unit.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes past decisions on applications already resolved. It is not a prediction of any specific application and does not account for individual application facts, claims, or art.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Mang Boi Thawng 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: 121 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