(a)(1) Interviews with examiners concerning applications and other matters pending before the Office must be conducted on Office premises and within Office hours, as the respective examiners may designate. Interviews will not be permitted at any other time or place without the authority of the Director.
(2) An interview for the discussion of the patentability of a pending application will not occur before the first Office action, unless the application is a continuing or substitute application or the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application.
(3) The examiner may require that an interview be scheduled in advance.
(b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
(35 U.S.C. 132)
[24 FR 10332, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 62 FR 53194, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54674, Sept. 8, 2000; 70 FR 56128, Sept. 26, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
· cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (emphasis supplied). The MPEP, commonly relied upon as a guide to patent attorneys and patent examiners on procedural matters, details procedures to be followed during and after an interview.”
Struthers Pat. Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc., 558 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981).
· cites it 5× “Concerning interviews, 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 provides: * * * * * * (b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed…”
State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“This court held that the patentee, without a written statement in the record pursuant to 37 CFR 1.133, was estopped from arguing that the C-I-P application, filed in response to the new matter rejection, did not contain new matter.”
Magnivision, Inc. v. The Bonneau Co., 115 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“The rules require that all interviews be recorded by the patent applicant, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 : (b) ... In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the…”
George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corp., 663 F.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1981).
“37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (1980). These rules were designed to enhance the reliability of reissue procedures by permitting the examiner to study the written record (which includes both supporting and opposing statements) and make an independent determination on patentability without…”
CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of Am., 469 F. Supp. 801 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
“1 ; see 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 , the file history of the Faber patent contains no reference to this *815 meeting nor any mention of the Battelle report or the Herold patent.”
ADE CORP. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 252 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Del. 2003).
“) Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (b), it is the patntee’s responsibility to complete a written statement as to the substance of that interview.”
jeneric/pentron v. Dillon Co., Chemichl Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D. Conn. 2001).
“” 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (b). These regulations are consistent with the Federal Circuit's holding that "to give due deference to public notice considerations under the Warner-Jenkinson framework, a patent holder seeking to establish the reason for an amendment must base his arguments…”
ShenZhen JingPinCheng Elec. Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Blisslights, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “) 16 On this issue, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s allegation is deficient because it 17 claims that the ‘045 Patent is unenforceable based on Defendant’s failure to submit a 18 written statement, per 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (b)9, of an examiner interview concerning the 19…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.