[Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year

Tue Apr 30 20:28:42 UTC 2024

That’s been my experience in the majority of cases as well – if the AAF and AFCP doesn’t result in allowance, there’s no interview granted.  I seem to remember that interviews were almost always granted, and it was very helpful to hear the Examiner’s position before filing an RCE.

Best regards,

Katherine

Dr. Katherine Koenig
Registered Patent Attorney
Koenig IP Works, PLLC
2208 Mariner Dr.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
(954) 903-1699
katherine at koenigipworks.com<mailto:katherine at koenigipworks.com>

[cid:image002.png at 01DA9B1B.761E4B10]
Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy

The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, do not read it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies.  Thank you.

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:25 PM
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year

I'm starting to think AFCP requests are a scam. I always file them when taking claims deemed allowable in an office action even though it's not required. I do it because I want to do the examiner a favor (an AFCP request gives the examiner half a count or something like that).

However, if an AFCP does not result in an allowance, then the examiner rarely conducts an interview anymore. The examiner just treats it like an after final request and waits for me to file an RCE to get even more counts.

I think the USPTO is picking up on how the AFCP program is being abused by examiners to generate counts without any extra effort on the examiner's part, which is why it wants to get rid of the program in the most recent fee setting proposal (I think that's where I saw it).

Scott Nielson

801-660-4400

________________________________
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Ed Welch via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:53 PM
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: welched123 at gmail.com<mailto:welched123 at gmail.com> <welched123 at gmail.com<mailto:welched123 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year

No, that’s not right!  The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen.  Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.  In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment.  In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview.  In the other two cases, both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions.  Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview.  Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request.  While all three would have been included in the total counts of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.

Ed Welch

IP&L Solutions

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim at larsen-ip.com<mailto:jim at larsen-ip.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year

By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).

Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf>

“If the examiner’s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.”

If you aren’t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper.  No?

Best regards,

-Jim

James C. Larsen
Attorney
Larsen IP PLLC
p: 425.298.6846
e: jim at Larsen-IP.com<mailto:jim at Larsen-IP.com>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<http://www.larsen-ip.com/>

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail, any attachments, and copies.

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04 PM
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: pbrisky at fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky at fujitsu.com> <pbrisky at fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky at fujitsu.com>>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year

Hi

The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it up.

Pamela Cei Brisky

Senior Patent Paralegal

Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center

pbrisky at fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky at fujitsu.com> |571-216-2112

[cid:image003.jpg at 01DA9B1B.761E4B10]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7679 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16949 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment.jpg>