For better or for worse, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been in the midst of a significant overhaul for most of 2025. The Office has experienced a series of major changes, both personnel- and policy-wise, including the swearing-in of a new director, changes in the application of discretionary denials of IPRs, the appointment of new PTAB leadership, the disbandment of the Denver office, and shifting examiner protocols and expectations, to name a few.
Notably, on October 2, 2025, the USPTO internally announced a new interview policy in which examiner “other time” credit for conducting attorney interviews is capped at one hour per prosecution cycle (i.e., from first Office action through request for continued examination (RCE)). By all accounts, additional “other time” credit would require supervisor approval, and any request for a second or subsequent interview during a prosecution cycle may require a showing that granting the interview request would advance prosecution.
Examiner productivity quotas are tied to the number of “examination” hours worked. For each applicant-initiated interview, an Examiner is generally permitted to claim up to one hour of non-examining time (i.e., “other time”). This hour of non-examining credit would proportionally reduce an Examiner’s productivity expectation for the biweek in which the credit is claimed. Previously, there was no practical limit on the amount of “other time” credit examiners could be granted (within reason) based on conducting multiple applicant-initiated interviews during a prosecution cycle of a patent application.
The practical effect of disallowing non-examining credit for interview time is to treat the duration of an interview as “examination” time for which an examiner is expected to produce work product (i.e., Office actions and the like). It is anticipated this new internal policy will result in a higher frequency of denied interview requests for second and subsequent interviews. However, it remains to be seen what practical effects on interview practice this new policy will have and whether the Office will promulgate official guidance to stakeholders in relation to the policy.
To manage potential pitfalls associated with the new interview policy, practitioners should be prepared to rethink and adjust their interview strategies, such as by reducing the frequency of interview requests, by forgoing interviews until after final Office actions, by conducting shorter interviews, and/or by including, with each subsequent interview request, an explanation as to how granting the interview would advance prosecution.
