When I started practicing patent law (many years ago), an examiner interview was basically a waste of time and effort. I believe the US Patent Office had an unwritten policy of discouraging telephone interviews which was painfully evident whenever holding the interviews.
I believe this policy was basically reversed a few years ago to the point where the US Patent Office now effectively encourages examiner interviews (and the examiners have become much more amenable). Accordingly, I believe the examiner interview has become an essential part of patent prosecution and should not only be requested, but requested multiple times if needed (after the first office action, second office action, advisory action, etc.)
One reason I believe examiner interviews were discouraged in the past (by the USPTO as well as by litigation attorneys) is because the USPTO explicitly "recommends" all communication by patent attorneys be in writing (37 CFR § 1.2), and examiner interviews are antithetical to this "recommendation." One can imagine the litigation quagmire an examiner interview might germinate, and for good reason. All communication with the US Patent Office should be open and recorded, particularly given the ex parte nature of the proceeding. Therefore I recommend reading my next post on the best procedure for holding an examiner interview so as to minimize the litigation load.
Disclaimer: All viewers agree no professional liability arises from anything posted on this website.
If you found this posting helpful, please donate to the author's bitcoin address:
When I started practicing patent law (many years ago), an examiner interview was basically a waste of time and effort. I believe the US Patent Office had an unwritten policy of discouraging telephone interviews which was painfully evident whenever holding the interviews.
I believe this policy was basically reversed a few years ago to the point where the US Patent Office now effectively encourages examiner interviews (and the examiners have become much more amenable). Accordingly, I believe the examiner interview has become an essential part of patent prosecution and should not only be requested, but requested multiple times if needed (after the first office action, second office action, advisory action, etc.)
One reason I believe examiner interviews were discouraged in the past (by the USPTO as well as by litigation attorneys) is because the USPTO explicitly "recommends" all communication by patent attorneys be in writing (37 CFR § 1.2), and examiner interviews are antithetical to this "recommendation." One can imagine the litigation quagmire an examiner interview might germinate, and for good reason. All communication with the US Patent Office should be open and recorded, particularly given the ex parte nature of the proceeding. Therefore I recommend reading my next post on the best procedure for holding an examiner interview so as to minimize the litigation load.
Disclaimer: All viewers agree no professional liability arises from anything posted on this website.
If you found this posting helpful, please donate to the author's bitcoin address:
12rdHyGyFsTrf1chH6fiFgwdXGqkRkarPG