USPTO Examiner CHANNAVAJJALA SRIRAMA T - Art Unit 2154

Examiner CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T works in Art Unit 2154 and has examined 219 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.1%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 28 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T's allowance rate of 83.1% places them in the 51% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T receive 2.08 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T is 28 months. This places the examiner in the 50% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +34.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T. This interview benefit is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 34.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 9% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 65.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 23.8% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 47.1% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.9% of allowed cases (in the 67% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 10% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

• MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
• MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
• MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
• MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
• MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
• MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal