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

Examiner Sameera Wickramasuriya

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 224 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
80%vs 76% art-unit average+4 pts
higher than about 42% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2494
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2494; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Sameera Wickramasuriya has allowed 179 of 224 decided applications.

179 allowed
45 abandoned
Plus 18 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Sameera Wickramasuriya maintains a public record across one art unit in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's overall allowance rate is 80%. This rate represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across all art units in the record. The allowance rate reflects past dispositions and does not indicate outcomes for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's decided applications across all art units. The overall allowance rate is a historical figure describing what has occurred in closed applications across the entire portfolio. Pooled rates do not predict results in individual applications, vary by art unit, or account for differences in application complexity, claim scope, or examiner assignment. Per-art-unit detail is available separately.

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 2494
242 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

80%
higher than about 42% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2494
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2494; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition224 decided applications

179 allowed
45 abandoned
Plus 18 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.9mo
disposed 32.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.1 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 37
37%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
89%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
78%

Interview benefit

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

without
55%
+33 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 171 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sameera Wickramasuriya

  • What is the overall allowance rate for Sameera Wickramasuriya?
    The examiner's overall allowance rate is 80%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications in all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The public record spans one art unit (2494) in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes past decided applications across all art units and is not a prediction of any specific application. Outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, examiner assignment, and other case-specific factors.
  • Why is the allowance rate presented as a pooled figure?
    Pooling aggregates the examiner's entire record for transparency. Per-art-unit rates vary and appear separately. The pooled rate illustrates overall historical disposition across the examiner's portfolio.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Sameera Wickramasuriya 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: 242 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