MPEP § 713.01 — General Policy, How Conducted (Annotated Rules)
§713.01 General Policy, How Conducted
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 713.01, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
General Policy, How Conducted
This section addresses General Policy, How Conducted. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.133 and 37 CFR 1.4(c). Contains: 1 requirement, 1 prohibition, 11 guidance statements, and 2 other statements.
Key Rules
Access to Patent Application Files (MPEP 101-106)
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.
Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.
Practitioner Recognition and Conduct
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication.
- i) A video conference is an electronic meeting, using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time.
- ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.
- iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
- iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. i) A video conference is an electronic meeting, using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03.
PTAB Contested Case Procedures
i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705 – 705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made.
Practitioner Conduct and Certification
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication. ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.
Prior Art in Reissue
Sometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations.
Sometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations.
Sometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations.
Abandonment for Failure to Reply
(b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
(b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
Correspondence Address Requirements
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
PTAB Jurisdiction
When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705 – 705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made.
When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705 – 705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made.
Reexamination Order
In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview.
In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview.
Copies and Certified Documents
The substance of any interview must be made of record in the application. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.04. A copy of any written communications or transcripts MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered.
The substance of any interview must be made of record in the application. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.04. A copy of any written communications or transcripts MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered.
Who May Participate in Interview
Thus, the attorney or agent should be fully prepared to discuss the issues raised in the Office action at the time of the interview. When it is obvious that the attorney or agent is not so prepared, the interview should be rescheduled. It is desirable that the attorney, agent, or applicant submit an agenda which indicates in advance what issues they desire to discuss at the interview by submitting, in writing, a proposed amendment or argument. This would permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the matters set forth in the proposed amendment.
Ex Parte Reexamination
In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview.
Access to Prosecution History
A duplicate copy is unnecessary when the amendment and/or remarks are filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as the examiner will be able to quickly access such documents. See the Patent Center Resource page of the Office website (www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05.
Electronic Access Systems
A duplicate copy is unnecessary when the amendment and/or remarks are filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as the examiner will be able to quickly access such documents. See the Patent Center Resource page of the Office website (www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Abandonment for Failure to Reply | 37 CFR § 1.111 |
| Correspondence Address Requirements | 37 CFR § 1.33 |
| Correspondence Address Requirements | 37 CFR § 1.34 |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.4(c) |
| Copies and Certified Documents Practitioner Recognition and Conduct | MPEP § 502.03 |
| Access to Prosecution History Electronic Access Systems | MPEP § 502.05 |
| PTAB Contested Case Procedures PTAB Jurisdiction | MPEP § 705 |
| – | MPEP § 713.01 |
| – | MPEP § 713.04 |
| – | MPEP § 713.09 |
| Access to Patent Application Files (MPEP 101-106) | MPEP § 714.05 |
| Prior Art in Reissue | MPEP § 812.01 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 713.01 — General Policy, How Conducted
Source: USPTO713.01 General Policy, How Conducted [R-01.2024]
37 CFR 1.133 Interviews.
- (a)
- (1) Interviews with examiners concerning applications and other matters pending before the Office must be conducted on Office premises and within Office hours, as the respective examiners may designate. Interviews will not be permitted at any other time or place without the authority of the Director.
- (2) An interview for the discussion of the patentability of a pending application will not occur before the first Office action, unless the application is a continuing or substitute application or the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application.
- (3) The examiner may require that an interview be scheduled in advance.
- (b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
- i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
- ii) In-person interviews with the examiner should be granted if there is an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreeable time. If such an opportunity is not available, then a video conference should be offered. In-person interviews must be conducted on the Office premises, such as in an examiner’s office, a conference room, an interview room or a video conference center, and should be held during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
- iii) Interviews other than in-person interviews should be held during normal business hours and may also be held during mutually agreed upon non-traditional business hours, such as Saturday and evening hours.
- iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone or electronic communication using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or Internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
- v) Any Examiner may, with the applicant’s consent, conduct an interview by video conferencing using the web-based collaboration tools provided by the Office.
- vi) Examiners who normally work remotely should arrange to hold an interview when on campus if there is an opportunity for all parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreeable time. In special situations an examiner who normally works remotely will be required to travel to campus for an in-person interview. The decision on special situations will be made at the TC Director level or higher as to whether the examiner of record or another USPTO representative will be on campus for the interview. A hoteling examiner within the local commuting area of a satellite office may use that satellite office for in-person or video conference interviews.
- vii) Examiners working on campus may hold interviews via video conference, telephonically, or in-person. Examiners may receive requests from an applicant for an interview using video conferencing. Such requests should normally be granted. See MPEP § 713.01, subsection III below. Telework does not prevent examiners from conducting interviews via video conference or telephonically from their approved alternate worksite.
Internet email, instant message system, or video conferencing shall NOT be used to conduct an exchange or communications similar to those exchanged during telephone or personal interviews unless authorization from the applicants or an attorney/agent of record has been given to use Internet communications. See MPEP § 502.03.
A. Written AuthorizationThe following is a sample written authorization which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
The Internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion.
B. Oral AuthorizationThe best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication.
III. VIDEO CONFERENCING- i) A video conference is an electronic meeting, using USPTO web-based collaboration tools, to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time.
- ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.
- iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
- iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03.
An interview should be arranged in advance to ensure that the primary examiner and/or the examiner in charge of the application will be available. Use of the USPTO’s Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form available at www.uspto.gov/ InterviewPractice is encouraged, but in the alternative, the examiner may be contacted by letter, facsimile, electronic mail, telephone or the “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form (PTOL-413A) to schedule the interview. The AIR form or the PTOL-413A form may be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance and to focus on the issues to be discussed. These forms should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, the communication mode (e.g., telephonic, video conference, or in-person), and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. Upon completion of the interview, a copy of the completed Interview Summary form (PTOL-413/413b) should be given or mailed to the applicant (or applicant’s attorney or agent) along with any attachments. See MPEP § 713.04.
When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705 – 705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made.
When a telephone call is received by an examiner and it becomes evident that a lengthy discussion will ensue or that the examiner needs time to restudy the situation, the call should be terminated with an agreement that the examiner will call back at a specified time. Such a call and all other calls originated by the examiner should be made by use of the Office’s equipment and software.
An examiner’s suggestion of allowable subject matter may justify indicating the possibility of an interview to accelerate early agreement on allowable claims.
The unexpected appearance of an attorney, agent, or applicant requesting an interview without any previous notice may well justify the examiner’s refusal of the interview at that time, particularly in an involved case.
An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.
Thus, the attorney or agent should be fully prepared to discuss the issues raised in the Office action at the time of the interview. When it is obvious that the attorney or agent is not so prepared, the interview should be rescheduled. It is desirable that the attorney, agent, or applicant submit an agenda which indicates in advance what issues they desire to discuss at the interview by submitting, in writing, a proposed amendment or argument. This would permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the matters set forth in the proposed amendment.
In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview.
The examiner should not hesitate to state, when appropriate, that claims presented for discussion at an interview would require further search and consideration. Nor should the examiner hesitate to conclude an interview when it appears that no common ground can be reached or when it becomes apparent that the application requires further amendment or an additional action by the examiner. However, the examiner should attempt to identify issues and resolve differences during the interview as much as possible.
It is the responsibility of all participants to see that the interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period, usually 30 minutes. It is the duty of the primary examiner to see that an interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period.
During an interview with a pro se applicant (i.e., an applicant who is prosecuting their own case and is not familiar with Office procedure), the examiner may make suggestions that will advance the prosecution of this case; this lies wholly within the examiner’s discretion. Excessive time, however, should not be allowed for such interviews.
Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.
Where agreement is reached as a result of an interview, applicant or applicant’s attorney or agent, as appropriate, should be advised that an amendment pursuant to the agreement should be promptly submitted.
A duplicate copy of a filed amendment and/or remarks if filed in paper may be sent to the examiner in order to facilitate early consideration.
A duplicate copy is unnecessary when the amendment and/or remarks are filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as the examiner will be able to quickly access such documents. See the Patent Center Resource page of the Office website (www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05.
The substance of any interview must be made of record in the application. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.04. A copy of any written communications or transcripts MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered.
Examiners may grant an interview after final rejection. See MPEP § 713.09.
V. VIEWING OF VIDEO DURING INTERVIEWSThe USPTO has equipment available for viewing video from applicants during interviews with patent examiners.
Attorneys or applicants wishing to show a video during an examiner interview must be able to demonstrate that the content of the video has a bearing on an outstanding issue in the application and its viewing will advance the prosecution of the application. If the video that applicant would like to display during the interview is in a format that USPTO equipment cannot display, the applicant should also bring to the interview the equipment necessary to display the video. The substance of the interview, including a summary of the content of the video must be made of record in the application. See MPEP § 713.04.
VI. EXAMINATION BY EXAMINER OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEWSometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations.
VII. COLLABORATION TOOLSCollaboration tools are the web-based tools provided by the USPTO and include multiple electronic communication tools such as video conferencing equipment and software. Examiners must only use USPTO-supplied equipment and software for interviews. All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel.
