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

Examiner Syed A Roni

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 195 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
90%vs 68% art-unit average+22 pts
higher than about 81% of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 48 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 47 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Syed A Roni has allowed 175 of 195 decided applications.

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

What the data says.reading this examiner

Syed A Roni maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across one art unit. Over hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 90%. This figure represents the share of applications that received a final allowance or were abandoned, excluding pending cases. The allowance rate is a historical measure of past dispositions and does not indicate the outcome of any future application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across the examiner's assigned art units. The allowance rate describes past dispositions and is correlational data—it reflects what occurred in closed cases, not a prediction for any specific pending or future application. Aggregate figures mask variation across different art units and technology areas within TC 2400.

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 2432
240 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

90%
higher than about 81% of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432
AU avg 68%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 47 examiners with published rates in art unit 2432; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 48 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 47 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition195 decided applications

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

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.6mo
disposed 29.1mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.5 mo, disposed 42.6 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
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
97%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
69%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
45%

Interview benefit

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

without
82%
+15 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 99 decided applications with an interview and 96 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Syed A Roni

  • What is the examiner's overall allowance rate?
    90% of the examiner's decided applications (allowed or abandoned) were allowed, across hundreds of decided cases pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner is assigned to one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate and does not predict any specific application's disposition. It reflects past decisions only.
  • What subject matter does Technology Center 2400 cover?
    Technology Center 2400 is the official descriptor for the examiner's assigned technology center. Specific art-unit subject matter is detailed in a separate section.
◈ 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.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 Syed A Roni 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: 240 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