LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Vu V Tran

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 487 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 65% art-unit average+26 pts
higher than about 88% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Vu V Tran has allowed 445 of 487 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Vu V Tran maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 91%, measured across hundreds of decided applications. This figure represents the percentage of applications that were allowed rather than abandoned, among all applications that reached a final disposition. The record reflects outcomes on applications that have completed prosecution; pending applications are excluded from this calculation.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction. The overall allowance rate describes past outcomes and is calculated from decided applications only—those allowed or abandoned. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may show variation from the pooled rate.

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 2491
509 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 88% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition487 decided applications

445 allowed
Plus 22 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.3mo
disposed 28mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 40 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 41
28%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
98%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
44%

Interview benefit

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

without
84%
+13 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 270 decided applications with an interview and 217 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Vu V Tran

  • What is Vu V Tran's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 91%, based on hundreds of decided applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Vu V Tran's public record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • What does the allowance rate include?
    The 91% allowance rate is the percentage of allowed applications among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned). Pending applications are not included in this percentage.
  • Does this rate apply to my application?
    This pooled rate reflects past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution facts.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Vu V 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: 509 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