Master Interview Practices at the USPTO

September and October of 2025 have seen several significant changes at the USPTO. In recent posts, we shared with you details of the Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) and changes to it. An important change in the PAP relates to interviews and your USPTO interview strategy.

Background

You’ve probably read all the etiquette on interviews, such as respecting time, coming prepared and effective communication. Patent examiner interviews are like that, but here the examiner is being punished for every minute extra you spend or follow-up meeting you request, no matter how helpful you are being.  These interviews are discussions between your patent agent and the assigned examiner to clarify issues, resolve misunderstandings, and advance the prosecution of a patent application. These can be in person, by phone, or using the USPTO’s video system.

Everyone thinks interviews are a good idea. Some examination reports will even urge the applicant to arrange an interview – that’s a pretty good hint that a solution to all life’s problems is just a call away.  However, in practice, only about a third of cases include an interview.

Most USPTO interview strategy involves listening.

Changes to Interview Practices at the USPTO in 2025

In October of 2025, the management of the USPTO changed two things.

• Capped interviews: Examiners are now generally compensated for only one (1) hour of interview time per round of prosecution (e.g., one (1) hour for the period after a new application or a Request for Continued Examination(RCE) is filed). Any additional interview time beyond this single hour requires approval from their Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE). This creates a strong disincentive for examiners to grant multiple or lengthy interviews (especially after a final rejection) unless they are certain it will lead to an allowance.
• Supervisors’ involvement in interviews: The PAP system requires examiners to get SPE approval only for additional interviews beyond the first credited hour. It implies a supervisor should participate in interviews. Generally, if the examiner has signing authority, then their SPE does not participate.

With only one hour of credited interview time (potentially excluding after-final interviews), examiners will be less incentivized to engage in lengthy discussions or iterative amendment proposals during calls. Examiners can’t deny second interviews based solely on this policy, but their motivation to accept anything over an hour is low. In the depths of the internet, one sees this poor motivation ranging from simple opposition, down to a desire to punish the applicant (on the belief that applicants and patent agents have the power to change this).

A junior examiner, one who does not have “signatory authority”, cannot approve actions, like an allowance or the next Office Action, on their own. Their work must be reviewed and co-signed by their SPE or a Primary Examiner. This may involve the supervisor participating in an interview.  Therefore, an experienced Primary Examiner can, and almost always does, conduct the first interview without their SPE’s participation or approval. The new rule only makes it harder to get a second interview in the same round of prosecution.

Requesting an Interview

We request an interview in three ways.

• Phone call
• AIR form
• Email

When calling, if we get the examiner, we ask for a date that works. If we get their voicemail, then we use the Automated Interview Request form – the USPTO’s official and officially encouraged web-based method for scheduling. This system emails the examiner the relevant information for the application, and lets the supervisor know a request was made. Email is tricky, as examiners are not authorized to respond to all emails, but if you limit the contents to scheduling of availability for an interview for a published patent application, then it works. Provided you have the examiner’s email address.

Best Practices for Examiner Interviews (Post-October 2025)

We will request an interview after a non-Final Office Action, instead of asking after a Final Office Action. Of course, we plan, are collaborative, and keep our expectations realistic.

1. Interview Early

• Timing is critical: Most agents interview late in prosecution. When we like the claims as filed in terms of definiteness and inventive step over the cited references, then we ask for an interview after the first non-final Office Action. At this stage:
  • The examiner is familiar with the application and cited references.
  • Specific rejections are on the table, making the discussion focused.
  • We are using the interview time that the examiner is automatically credited for.
• Avoid waiting: We don’t hold off until after a Final Office Action if possible. While interviews after final can be granted, the examiner has more discretion to deny them (especially now), and getting a second interview in the same round requires SPE approval, which is harder to get.
• PAP matters: The new rules give examiners credit for only one (1) hour of interview time per round of prosecution (e.g., after the initial filing or after an RCE) without needing supervisor approval.

 

2. Be Prepared and Efficient

• Thorough review: Before the interview, deeply analyze the Office Action, the cited references (including parts not explicitly cited), and the application itself.
  • Develop clear arguments: Know exactly which rejections you will challenge and why.
  • Propose concrete solutions: Have specific claim amendments drafted and ready to present. This is crucial.
• Submit a detailed agenda: Use the AIR form or submit a written agenda well in advance (at least 24 – 48 hours). A good agenda includes:
  • The specific issues or rejections to be discussed.
  • The text of a proposed set of claim amendments.
  • A summary of arguments linking the amendments to overcoming the rejections.
• Why this helps: A detailed agenda allows the examiner to prepare, increasing the chance of a productive discussion and potential agreement within the limited time. It also forms the basis for requesting SPE approval for a second interview if needed.

3. Focus on Collaboration & Resolution

The aim is to reach a mutual understanding and find a path to allowance, not just to re-argue points from a written response. It takes effort, but we actively listen to the examiner’s core concerns. We find clarifying questions take up most of our speaking time. Sometimes there is one word that is unclear to them (but clear to you) and another word that reads on to some citation (but the suggested fix has little impact on your claim strategy).

We remain open to the examiner’s suggestions for claim language if they align with your goals. Examiners need to show they did their job and you can usually give up some breadth to show goodwill.

We ask the examiner if they see any potentially allowable subject matter and discuss amendments that could capture it.

The challenge of limited time is more acute. We focus on the most critical issues that require discussion. Minor points can often be handled in writing. Sometimes, the remainder of the issues must be dealt with in an RCE.

4. Set Realistic Expectations

We like to build agreement.  Often, we seek tacit agreement to start. This can be as simple as thanking the examiner for agreeing to meet. We like to point out any objections or rejections that we agree to deal with in writing.  While the goal is agreement, examiners rarely explicitly state “this is allowable” during the call. They need to formally review the written response and may need to conduct a further search. We ask if the claims look reasonable and something they can search or analyze. However, if the examiner does point something as allowable, we can run with that as it means they get credit for little work.

We aim to leave the interview with a clear understanding of the examiner’s position. Ideally, we can quickly create specific amendments or arguments to overcome the rejections.

5. Requesting a Second Interview Requires Strategy

Since a second interview in the same round requires SPE approval and a showing that it will “advance prosecution,” your request (and the agenda) needs to be compelling. “Advance Prosecution” means the discussion must aim to resolve specific outstanding issues that couldn’t be settled in writing or the first interview, clarify points needed for appeal, or directly lead to placing the application in condition for allowance with only nominal further work by the examiner. It generally does not mean simply restating old arguments or introducing entirely new claims/issues that require significant reconsideration or a new search. (See MPEP § 713.09)

Conclusion

We hope this post explains a little of why we deal with the USPTO in the way that we do. If you would like to discuss protecting your invention with a patent application, please contact us.