Key Points:

• Protocol change. Going forward, Examiners will be compensated for only a single, one-hour interview per case.
• Net Effect. The new protocol may result in more Examiners refusing to conduct after-Final interviews.
• Practice tip. It might help to request an Examiner interview after a non-Final Office Action, instead of waiting until issuance of a Final Office Action.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a change earlier this month that may limit the availability of Examiner interviews going forward.

Under the new USPTO internal protocol, Examiners will be compensated for only a single, one-hour interview per case, with any additional interview(s) requiring supervisor approval. An additional interview would presumably be permitted in a next round of prosecution, such as after filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).

It might help to request an Examiner interview after a non-Final Office Action, instead of waiting until issuance of a Final Office Action.

According to existing USPTO practice, under MPEP 713, interviews are typically encouraged, but the Examiner has discretion to deny an interview after a Final Office Action.

Prior to the newly announced protocol, Examiners would in most circumstances grant interviews if they were deemed to help advance prosecution. In the past, Examiners have typically adhered to PTO directives circumscribing their authority. We will see over the next few months if the new protocol does in fact materially restrict the availability of interviews.

The above changes were included in the fiscal year 2026 Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) that is used to evaluate performance of Examiners at the USPTO.

The 2026 PAP includes several other notable changes, including that Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cases will receive less credit in Examiner counts and Examiners will have increased production targets to receive maximum available compensation.

For more information, please contact Peter F. Corless at pcorless@foxrothschild.com or Steven M. Jensen at sjensen@foxrothschild.com.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.