Tag Archives: Examiner Interview

Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program Set to Expire in June Unless Extended

Author: Rachael P. Dippold, Ph.D.
Editor:  Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

Last year, President Obama announced the National Cancer Moonshot, an initiative with the goal of making ten years’ worth of advances in cancer research and treatment over the following five years.  In support of this initiative, the USPTO announced its “Patents 4 Patients” program, also known as the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program.  Through this pilot program, which began June 29, 2016, applications directed to cancer immunotherapy are provided special status for examination, with the goal of completing prosecution within 12 months of the grant of special status.  Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Examining the Examiner Interview

Author: Adriana L. Burgy
Editor:  Michelle Pacholec, Ph.D.

Compact or streamlined prosecution is in vogue in prosecution circles these days.  While examiner interviews are a tried and true “old” tool in a prosecutor’s tool box, they are reemerging as a means to facilitate compact or streamline prosecution, benefiting both clients and the USPTO. Some of the advantages that are driving their popularity include the fact that examiner interviews can reduce prosecution costs, minimize arguments of record, and decrease prosecution time.  Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Myriad, Mayo, Chakrabarty, Oh My: Strategies for Life Sciences Diagnostics – Part III

Author: Adriana L. Burgy
Editor: Leslie A. McDonell

In Part III of “Myriad, Mayo, Chakrabarty, Oh My:  Strategies for Life Sciences Diagnostics” (links to Part I can be found here and Part II here), we consider the use of examiner interviews and how they can assist into obtaining allowable diagnostic claims. An examiner interview is not a new tool for the prosecutor; it gives an applicant an opportunity to discuss the prior art, the invention, and potential claim amendments in one instance with an examiner. While the gold standard is an in-person interview, telephone interviews are the norm due to today’s prosecution budgets and the USPTO hoteling options for examiners. Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

Prosecution Pointer 40

Prosecution First Blog Pointer

Video conferencing is available for examiner interviews.

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.

Tagged ,

After Final . . . Now What?

Editor: Adriana L. Burgy

The After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) program that launched on May 19, 2013, now extends through September 30, 2016. The AFCP 2.0 program allots more time to examiners to search and/or consider submissions after final rejection. The program also allows examiners to use additional time to schedule and conduct an interview if an applicant’s submission does not place the application in condition for allowance. AFCP 2.0 is also free; there is no fee to file the AFCP 2.0 request.

To be eligible for the AFCP 2.0, an application must be a utility, design, or plant non-provisional application that has received a final rejection. Eligible applications include national stage applications and continuing applications (e.g., divisional or continuation applications), but not reissue and reexamination applications. In addition, only one request for consideration under AFCP 2.0 may be filed in response to an outstanding final rejection. Second or subsequent requests for consideration under AFCP 2.0 filed in response to the same outstanding final rejection will be processed consistent with current practice concerning responses after final rejection under 37 CFR 1.116.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,