Publication
The Pendulum Swings Back: USPTO Signals Examiner Interviews Are Easier to Obtain Than Practitioners Feared
Bottom Line for Patent Lawyers: When the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) quietly revised its examiner Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) for Fiscal Year 2026 last October, many patent teams read the change as a retreat from the Office’s long-standing embrace of examiner interviews: an effective “one-and-done” cap that would make second interviews hard or impossible to obtain. A USPTO webinar held this week points in the opposite direction. With a former big-firm prosecutor now sitting on the Deputy Commissioner’s side of the table, the agency used the session to correct the record. Interviews remain favored, second interviews are available, and the “one interview per round of prosecution” reading circulating among examiners and practitioners alike is, in the Office’s own words, “not a correct statement.”
How the October 2025 Change Landed
The catalyst for the initial change in interview practice was an administrative adjustment to how examiners are credited “attribute time,” the non-production time allotted for conducting an interview. Historically, examiners received one hour of credit per interview, and an automation change in FY2021 caused that hour to be granted automatically whenever an interview summary was entered into the record. The Office concluded the automatic grant was being triggered by non-substantive contacts, such as scheduling calls and grammatical corrections, that never warranted non-production time.
Effective October 1, 2025, and announced on October 2, 2025, the FY2026 PAP changed the default. Examiners now automatically receive one hour of interview attribute time for an interview in a new application or a newly filed Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and the interview counter resets when an RCE is filed. A second or subsequent interview within the same prosecution cycle is still permitted, but the examiner must obtain supervisory approval and show that the additional interview will move the application forward.
Coming alongside the wind-down of the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 and other operational changes, the adjustment read to many practitioners as a signal that examiner interaction was being rationed by the USPTO administration. Commentators warned the supervisory-approval requirement amounted to a “soft ban” on second interviews and sat uneasily beside MPEP § 713, which treats interviews as often indispensable to advancing prosecution. Patent lawyers worried about more frequent denials of after-final interviews and fewer examiner-initiated calls, the very interactions that often resolve § 101 and § 112 issues without an RCE and get applications allowed. The confusion was not limited to practitioners: examiners and supervisors themselves reportedly relied on an internal October 2025 email suggesting that only one interview was permitted per round of prosecution.
This Week’s Webinar Points the Other Way
The July 15, 2026, session was led by Tariq Hafiz, a group director in Technology Center 3600, and David Wiley, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Patents. Barry Schindler, who became Deputy Commissioner for Patents roughly three months ago after serving as co-chair of Greenberg Traurig’s global patents group, also joined in during the live Q&A session. Schindler’s presence provided a good representative from the practitioner’s perspective. He framed the discussion from a stakeholder’s point of view and used it to push back on the prevailing narrative.
The message during the webinar was direct. The idea that interviews are now disfavored is “absolutely incorrect.” The Office favors interviews and treats them as a route to allowance. For day-to-day practice, the panel also confirmed that the “one interview per round” understanding is not a correct statement of the policy, and that the agency has recently been conveying that correction down the chain to TC directors, supervisors, and examiners. Two persistent myths were retired on the record:
- You do not have to promise allowance. A second interview does not require a showing that the case will be allowed, only that the interview will help move the case forward. For example, an amendment to overcome the applied art, clarification of issues for appeal, or rolling up a dependent claim that may prompt a new search were all identified as moving the case forward.
- Going to the supervisor for a second interview does not “poison the well.” The panel described the fear of alienating an examiner by contacting a supervisory patent examiner (SPE) as an “old wives’ tale.” Examiners want to dispose of cases, and a supervisor who can approve additional time is generally a welcome help.
Practical Guidance for Securing Interviews
- Timing. The most productive interviews come after the first Office Action, once both sides have digested the cited prior art. After-final interviews are typically granted for narrow issues (e.g., clarify positions for appeal) or to place a case in condition for allowance. Interviews before the first Office Action and after a Notice of Allowance remain rare and are seldom granted.
- Second interviews. Request these through the examiner or SPE and make the agenda do the work by stating specifically why the additional discussion will advance prosecution. SPEs will weigh whether the prior interview was substantive, whether the new request furthers prosecution, and the level of examiner preparation involved.
- Agendas are now the key. An agenda is not required, but the panel repeatedly stressed that it is the practical tool that leads to a productive interview and often can unlock a second one when needed. Interview agendas should point to specific claim limitations, cite paragraph and line numbers for reference, and identify each issue to be discussed. Practitioners should be cognizant of what they send, as examiners are required to make all materials presented during the interview of record in the file wrapper.
- Use the AIR form. The Automated Interview Request (AIR) form has moved into Patent Center, with a new tutorial video showing how it works. An AIR form gives the Office better data than a phone call and creates a follow-up trail that is integrated into the examiner’s workflow. It is highly unlikely that patent support staff will regain the ability to submit AIR forms, as the Office is now interpreting the laws and regulations surrounding the form as requiring an attorney’s signature.
- Video conferences are now preferred. Video conferencing is now the Office’s preferred method, but it must be hosted by the examiner on a USPTO-issued Teams link (applicant-hosted platforms are not permitted). This is a departure from the previous preferred method of telephonic interviews and allows for visual aids to be shown live during the interview.
- In-person interviews. A new visitor scheduler is launching that requires pre-registration and ID.me identity verification before arrival at a USPTO campus for an in-person interview.
- Refreshed best-practices guidance. The Office’s interview best-practices document, developed with the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and the American Intellectual Property Association (AIPLA), was updated in May 2026 and is organized around accessibility, preparation, substance, and recordation. It is posted under Training and FAQs on the interview practice pages of the USPTO website.
- If an interview is denied. Capture the stated reasons and, if you are at an impasse with the examiner, escalate to the examiner’s supervisor or the Patent Ombuds Office. Each Technology Center also has interview specialists and supervisory examiners available for questions or one-on-one training.
- Email communications. Examiners may correspond by email only where internet communication authorization is on the record (MPEP § 502). Absent that authorization, expect the examiner to move the discussion to the phone and place any incoming email into the record. The AIR form contains an internet communication authorization statement, so using it to schedule an interview can allow for easy communication with the examiner assigned to your application.
Foreign-Domicile Representation Rule Takes Effect July 20, 2026
The webinar also flagged a change with direct consequences for interview practice and for any foreign patent team managing a portfolio in the US. Under a final rule effective July 20, 2026, patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is outside the United States or its territories must be represented by a USPTO-registered patent practitioner in correspondence with the Office. The requirement reaches filings received on or after that date regardless of when the application was filed, and a single foreign-domiciled inventor, applicant, or owner can trigger it for the entire application.
For interviews specifically, where representation is required, a registered practitioner must be present. Examiners have been instructed to confirm that a registered practitioner is on the line before proceeding in an interview with a foreign applicant or co-inventor. Patent teams with foreign co-inventors, foreign subsidiaries, or cross-border research collaborations should engage a registered practitioner well ahead of the effective date to avoid gaps in ongoing prosecution.
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
