December 29, 2023
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†
Prosecuting a patent application may be viewed as a negotiation. The practitioner’s objective: to obtain the desired claim scope for your client; minimize amendments/arguments that might reduce the scope of literal claim coverage or even claim coverage under the doctrine of equivalents; and conclude prosecution in the shortest possible time. The examiner’s primary objective: to protect the public interest by issuing valid U.S. patents; the examiner is not thinking down the road about infringement issues. This creates opportunities for a negotiation, e.g., substituting language that provides a basis for ensnaring infringers but at the same time satisfies the examiner’s patentability concerns. Some examiners quickly understand that there is no reason for an applicant to obtain a patent that no one will infringe; the discussion then switches over to seeing if there is broader language that the examiner will deem to nonetheless satisfy the requirements of patentability.
At the end of the interview, summarize the points of agreement/disagreement with the examiner prior to the examiner completing the Interview Summary Form. The Interview Summary Form becomes part of the record and is sometimes the only record of what happened at the interview.
After the interview, various follow-up actions may be required. The sooner these are done, the more likely it is that the examiner’s concerns will be completely addressed.
†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.
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
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.