Proper PTO procedure is to have someone with negotiation authority (GS-13 and above) present, but in the maybe 10+ interviews I’ve had in my career, all of them except the first one have been solo. Not having negotiation authority never stopped me from agreeing that amendment XYZ overcomes rejection ABC. I guess technically I’m still a “junior examiner” (although I have been the “senior” examiner in interviews three times), but the examiners I know that are greener than I am seem to get a steady stream of interview requests. Maybe lawyers think they’re more likely to make some headway with newbies especially since there are likely blatant errors in OAs?

“From your perspective, is a telephone interview as helpful as an in person interview?”
Everything else equal maybe in-person interviews are slightly more productive, but the type of interview is much less of a factor than how prepared a lawyer is.

Thanks for the information. I would love to chat with you off the record either via phone or e-mail. I always keep confidences, and would treat any communications confidential. I am also interested in chatting with other examiners interested in sharing on this topic.

Do you see any common thread or characteristics of attorneys who do not seek interviews other than in-house vs. firm attorneys? Is it an age thing? Is it an experience thing? Do you see fewer interview requests from West Coast attorneys vs. East Coast attorneys?

Could you elaborate on why in person are slightly better? Is it the obvious “face time” that allows for a professional relationship and maybe non-verbal communication to be read and picked up on? I assume these are the reasons, which makes sense, but if you have other suggestions I would love to hear them. Also would love to hear what you find (in general terms) to be effective. There are many of us that would like to help you all as much as we reasonably can and the goal is to get justified patents issued. I think the Office is on a good path. But what can attorneys do to help? I have long thought we are ships passing in the night, not understanding where the other is coming from.

Thanks.

_Gene

My personal interview experiences, noting that I don’t work in a “hot-button” area that is constantly being affected by court decisions:

1. I do lots of interviews.
2. Interviews are almost always helpful and the cases are disposed of much sooner. The cases that stay on my docket forever and go through many rounds of prosecution are never interviewed.
3. In person interviews are slightly better than phone interviews but both are useful.
4. In-house attorneys seem to request interviews less frequently than outside attorneys.

While I get lots of interviews, I rarely get any appeals these days…only 1 brief the last 16 months IIRC.

That is amazing. I can’t understand why that would be the case. Perhaps it is just the belief in the bar that the PTO management has issued “reject, reject, reject right now” edicts. It seems that allowances are starting to come through more often, and I think interviews with examiners are extremely helpful and a good path to follow.

From your perspective, is a telephone interview as helpful as an in person interview?

-Gene

Yes, it’s great to get the inside scoop from an examiner interview, but what about the applicants that follow the proceedures and guidance of the MPEP? The examiner will cite the new secret requirements that aren’t in the MPEP, and the applicant will quite properly conclude that the examiner is in error. The net effect is that a great deal of applicant money and office resources will be wasted as both sides are playing off of a different set of rules.