USPTO Examiner Interviews Make the News

06 September 2012 PharmaPatents Blog

Although I am used to seeing patent litigation stories in The Washington Post, I was surprised when Sunday’s business section included an article on examiner interviews. Over the past few years, examiner interviews have become a more and more significant part of my patent practice. In a complex case, they can offer an invaluable opportunity to discuss the state of the art, explain the technology of the invention, or even review a specific point of patent law. While interviews do not always result in an agreement as to patentable subject matter, they do always advance prosecution–at the very least we come away with a better understanding of the examiner’s concerns and an indication of how we might be able to move forward.

The Personal Touch

The Washington Post article tells of an inventor (Dr. Herr) who met with the examiner who had rejected all of his patent claims over the prior art. According to the article, the inventor was able to explain the significance of the invention to the examiner, obtain a broad patent, and attract investors for his company.

As I read the article, I was particularly struck by this quote:

“Had I not visited the patent office in person,” Herr said, “the discussion on prior art, novelty and utility might not have evolved as it did, and the four essential patent claims that eventually issued, and upon which the company was founded, might not have emerged.”

I almost always prefer in-person interviews over telephone interviews for similar reasons. I find that the conversation flows more freely when we meet face-to-face, and it is easier to ensure that we are making our points clearly when we can read facial expressions and other body language. Sitting in an examiner’s office or USPTO conference room, we can pore over the same documents, review the same figures, and, hopefully, come to the same conclusion on patentability.

The Video Conference Compromise

With the rise of examiner “hoteling” (telecommuting) it is getting more difficult to arrange in-person interviews. In response, the USPTO is beginning to offer interviews by video conference. While that may be a good compromise, I am afraid that it will be a compromise. As much as I embrace technology, even the smoothest electronic connection cannot substitute for the professional rapport that can be established in a face-to-face meeting. I hope the USPTO appreciates the advantages of in-person interviews, and considers using its new satellite offices as alternative sites for in-person examiner interviews across the country.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services