Examiner Srirama T Channavajjala has allowed 715 of 985 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Srirama T Channavajjala maintains a public record across 7 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 985 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 73%. The 715 allowed applications and 270 abandoned applications comprise this decided pool. Across the art units, allowance rates range from 62% to 83%. This record reflects outcomes in the examiner's assigned art units and does not represent a prediction for any pending or future application.
This record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 73% describes past dispositions and reflects the examiner's historical record across different subject areas. Aggregate figures characterize a portfolio, not an individual application. Rates vary by art unit; the range of 62% to 83% illustrates that variation. This data is factual history and is not predictive.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 245 decided applications with an interview and 177 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 204 decided applications with an interview and 81 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 95 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 52 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Srirama T Channavajjala has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 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: 1,027 applications.
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