直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

Interview, Interview, Interview! Part 2: Interview to Expedite Prosecution

December 22, 2023

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†

Examiners do not have much time to search and act on a single application. In addition, often the subject matter is highly complex. An interview can be an ideal teaching opportunity with charts, tables, pictures, and other means of disseminating and summarizing information. It can help show why the claims are allowable. Such presentations can prevent prosecution from bogging down completely. If a new examiner is assigned to your case, a summary presentation may be an ideal way to bring them up to speed with an efficiency that they will appreciate. 

Prepare, prepare, prepare

A key to a successful interview involves preparation. Initially, the practitioner must understand to the greatest extent possible, the claimed invention, the examiner’s rejections, and the prior art cited against the claims.

By fully understanding the claimed invention before the interview, moreover, the practitioner has the opportunity to consult meaningfully with the client before the interview. Positions the examiner might take can be discussed and decisions made about what can be negotiated and what cannot.

If there are limitations in the claims that need to be clarified, it is advisable to have a draft amendment available for the interview. If it has been decided in advance that there are some areas of negotiation, the practitioner might also carry along some fall-back draft amendments, to be produced if needed during the interview.

Credibility is all-important. In an interview, as well as during the rest of prosecution, the practitioner needs to be accurate in characterizing the claims and the prior art. The examiner should feel comfortable relying on the accuracy of everything asserted by the practitioner.

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Appeals to the PTAB

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP