LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/THINH D TRAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Thinh D Tran

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 558 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
63%vs 65% weighted peer average2 pts

Examiner Thinh D Tran has allowed 353 of 558 decided applications.

353 allowed
205 abandoned
Plus 57 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (65%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2466 · 64%AU 2419 · 40%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Thinh D Tran maintains a public record across Technology Center 2400, spanning 2 art units. Across hundreds of decided applications pooled from all art units, the examiner's allowance rate is 63%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The record reflects dispositions in TC 2400 and does not include pending applications. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within Technology Center 2400. The 63% allowance rate describes the examiner's past decisions on applications that have been decided (allowed or abandoned). Pooled figures combine different art units and represent historical outcomes, not predictions of how any individual application will be examined. Separate per-art-unit statistics are available elsewhere and may differ from the pooled average.

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 2466
600 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

64%
higher than about 28% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2466
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2466; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition543 decided applications

347 allowed
196 abandoned
Plus 57 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.3mo
disposed 50.7mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.9 mo, disposed 37.8 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 22
29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
65%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
55%

Interview benefit

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

without
58%
+17 pts
with
75%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 197 decided applications with an interview and 346 without.

ART UNIT 2419
15 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

40%
higher than about 24% of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition15 decided applications

6 allowed
9 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.5mo
disposed 44mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 31.1 mo, disposed 44.4 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Thinh D Tran

  • What is Examiner Thinh D Tran's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate across all decided applications in Technology Center 2400 is 63%. This represents the percentage of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units in Technology Center 2400.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Per-art-unit figures may differ from the pooled average.
  • What applications are included in this record?
    The figures include hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned). Pending applications are excluded from the allowance-rate calculation.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Thinh D Tran 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: 615 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