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

Examiner Tu T Nguyen

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 486 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
93%vs 66% weighted peer average+27 pts

Examiner Tu T Nguyen has allowed 453 of 486 decided applications.

453 allowed
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (66%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2453 · 93%AU 2486 · 100%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Tu T Nguyen maintains a public record across Technology Center 2400, spanning 2 art units. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 93%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across both art units. The record reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final resolution and does not include pending applications.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units within TC 2400. The 93% allowance rate describes the historical distribution of outcomes—allowed versus abandoned—among applications already decided. Pooled figures reflect past results across different subject areas and do not constitute a prediction for any individual application. Individual art-unit records, where available separately, may show variation from the aggregate.

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 2453
483 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

93%
higher than about 79% of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition483 decided applications

450 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.7mo
disposed 30.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.4 mo, disposed 47.5 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 43
40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
14%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
29%

Interview benefit

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

without
92%
+6 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 113 decided applications with an interview and 370 without.

ART UNIT 2486
3 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than about 92% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2486; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 39 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition3 decided applications

3 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 15.9mo
disposed 25.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.8 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 21
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
0%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Tu T Nguyen

  • What is Tu T Nguyen's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 93%, measured as a share of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across hundreds of applications in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Tu T Nguyen's public record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400. This pooled profile aggregates data across both units.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate shows the percentage of applications that were allowed among all applications that reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned). It does not include pending applications and is not a prediction of outcomes on any specific application.
  • Does this rate apply to my application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes across multiple art units. Outcomes on individual applications vary and are not predicted by aggregate statistics.
◈ 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.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 Tu T 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: 486 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