When you’re deep in building something new—writing code, testing hardware, shipping updates—it’s easy to think of the patent process as a roadblock. Another meeting. More paperwork. More waiting. But here’s a little-known secret that can completely change how you see it.
Understanding the Real Goal of the Interview
It’s Not Just About This Patent—It’s About Your Business Trajectory
The examiner interview is not just a legal checkpoint. It’s a business opportunity hiding in plain sight.
Think of it like this: the person on the other side of that call holds the keys to a powerful business asset.
One that can shape your fundraising story. One that can block competitors.
One that can drive up your valuation. And in some cases, one that can create long-term licensing revenue for your company.
So, when you walk into that interview, you’re not just trying to get a claim allowed. You’re protecting leverage.
You’re locking in an advantage. You’re creating clarity around what you own—and what others can’t touch.
If you treat the examiner interview like a formality, you miss the bigger picture.
Instead, use this moment to think strategically.
What claim scope will give you the most room to grow? What’s core to your technology, and what’s peripheral?
What can you let go of—and what do you need the examiner to see, understand, and support?
This is about positioning. Not just for allowance—but for your company’s long-term edge.
Use the Interview to Shape the Future Narrative
When investors look at your IP, they’re not reading claims. They’re looking for clarity.
Does this company have something truly unique? Is it protected? Does the founder have a handle on their moat?
The examiner interview is your chance to shape that story—not just for this filing, but for future continuation filings and follow-on patents.
For example, if the examiner pushes back on one aspect of your claim, and you explain how your core innovation lies elsewhere, you may open up space for an even broader claim in a future application.
But only if you’re intentional. Only if you go in with a clear, narrative-based strategy.
Treat the interview like a rehearsal for the story you’ll tell investors, acquirers, and partners.
You’re aligning your tech, your IP, and your go-to-market in one conversation.
That’s high leverage.
Think Beyond Rejection—Focus on Friction Points
A lot of founders think of the interview as a reactive step. The examiner rejects. You respond.
But the best outcomes come when you shift from reactive to proactive.
Instead of just trying to fight a rejection, use the interview to uncover friction points—places where your claim might be misunderstood, overcomplicated, or poorly positioned.
Why does that matter?
Because sometimes the rejection is just the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is that the claim doesn’t match how the invention actually works.
Or it uses words that don’t reflect your competitive edge. Or it’s drifting away from what actually matters to your product roadmap.
The examiner interview is your best chance to fix that. Not just by arguing, but by realigning.
If the examiner’s confusion matches what your future customers or investors might also misunderstand, then this is your moment to correct course.
That’s not a legal tactic. That’s business strategy.
Anchor Your Agenda in Business Value
When shaping your agenda, ask yourself:
What’s the version of this claim that helps our business the most?
Is it broader coverage that keeps competitors out? Is it a specific protection for a unique algorithm or feature? Is it something you can license?
Then build the conversation around that.
Not all rejections are worth fighting. Not all amendments are worth making.
But if your business depends on a clean allowance, or a tight scope around your secret sauce, then that’s where your energy should go.
This approach also helps you make real-time decisions during the interview.
If the examiner suggests a narrower version of the claim, and it still covers your commercial product or strategic feature, it might be a smart tradeoff.
But if it gives away too much, or fails to block key threats, you’ll know it’s time to push back.
Being clear on what matters to your business gives you confidence in that moment. And that confidence leads to better outcomes.
Prepare to Educate, Not Just Explain
The biggest wins often come when the examiner walks away saying, “I didn’t realize that.”
That’s when you know you’ve shifted the conversation.
So instead of just repeating arguments, use the interview to teach. Give context. Show how the tech is used in practice.
Explain how your approach solves a problem in a new way—not just on paper, but in the real world.
This shifts the examiner’s mindset from technical enforcer to curious partner. From someone looking to reject, to someone open to understanding.
Founders who approach the interview as educators—not debaters—often come away with better claim coverage, faster results, and a better relationship with the examiner.
And that matters more than most people realize.
Start With the End in Mind
Know What a “Win” Looks Like for Your Company
Before you even think about what to say in the examiner interview, you need clarity on what you actually want to get from it—and why that outcome matters for your business.
This might sound obvious, but it’s where many startups misstep.
They focus on getting claims allowed without asking a more important question: is this claim going to help us block competitors, raise our valuation, or protect our core tech?
Not all allowances are wins. A narrow claim that lets you say “we have a patent” but doesn’t actually protect what gives your product its edge isn’t worth much.
On the flip side, fighting too hard for a broad claim that doesn’t match your actual product can drain time and goodwill—and still leave you exposed.
So the real work starts before the interview. You need to define what success means in this context.
Is it a quick allowance so you can show traction to investors? Is it a broader claim that gives you real leverage down the line? Is it strategic clarity for future filings?
Once you know what outcome supports your business goals, you can shape the interview around that—not just the rejection at hand.
Reverse Engineer the Conversation From Your Desired Outcome
Think of the examiner interview like any high-stakes negotiation.
You don’t go in hoping to just “see what happens.” You start by defining your ideal outcome. Then you work backward.
What needs to be clarified for the examiner to agree?
What claim language needs to stay untouched?
What amendments could unlock progress without weakening your position?
What misunderstandings are blocking the path?
When you approach the interview this way, your agenda becomes a strategic narrative instead of a checklist.
You’re guiding the conversation toward your desired result—not reacting to someone else’s script.
And that’s exactly how you stay in control.
Build a Pre-Meeting Strategy Brief
One powerful but often overlooked tactic is to create a short internal strategy brief before the interview.
Not a legal memo—just a quick business-focused summary of what you’re trying to achieve and how this claim fits into your bigger picture.
It should answer questions like:
Why does this claim matter to our product or roadmap?
What would we not be willing to give up in this negotiation?
If we need to compromise, what’s an acceptable fallback that still supports our goals?
This brief becomes your mental anchor during the call. It keeps you grounded, especially if the conversation starts to drift or pressure builds.
And it helps your team stay aligned—whether it’s you, your patent counsel, or both on the line.
You’ll be amazed how much clearer your agenda becomes once you have this in hand.
Treat the Interview as a Business Milestone
Most founders treat examiner interviews as legal to-dos. But when done right, they’re actually inflection points in your business journey.
If the interview leads to a broader allowance, that can become a slide in your next pitch deck.
If it uncovers a potential limitation in your claim, that’s a chance to refine your moat.
If it opens a door to a continuation strategy, you’ve just created an IP flywheel.
All of that starts by knowing what you’re trying to achieve—not just for this filing, but for your business overall.
That’s why starting with the end in mind isn’t a legal tactic. It’s a mindset.
It’s about shifting from passive applicant to active strategist. From reacting to the process to shaping it.
And that shift is where real IP power comes from.
Identify the Real Blockers
Not All Rejections Are Equal—Pinpoint What’s Actually In Your Way
When you first read an office action, it can feel overwhelming.
The examiner might cite multiple references, throw in a few different legal standards, and hit you with several claim rejections at once.
But if you treat every line with equal weight, you’ll end up chasing your tail—and wasting your shot at a productive examiner interview.
The real blocker is almost never the volume of issues.
It’s the single point of misunderstanding, misalignment, or mismatch that’s keeping the examiner from saying yes.
Your job is to find that.
This means looking past the surface-level citations and asking deeper questions. What’s the core reason this claim is being rejected?
Is the examiner actually misunderstanding your invention? Are they interpreting a key term differently than you intended?
Or are they treating two features as equivalent when they’re not?
Until you identify the true source of friction, you can’t build an agenda that resolves it.
This is the strategic lift. And it’s one that separates reactive filings from smart, founder-led prosecution.
Use Product Reality to Diagnose the Disconnect
One highly effective way to identify the real blocker is to map the rejected claim against your actual product or technology.
If a cited reference looks similar on paper but doesn’t reflect how your invention works in practice, that’s a clue.
It often means the examiner is viewing your claim too broadly—or misapplying a reference out of context.
When this happens, don’t just point out the error. Use the interview as a way to re-anchor the conversation in reality.
Walk the examiner through how your system works in deployment. Explain how the key step in your process isn’t found in the prior art.
Frame the discussion in terms of functional differences, not just wording.
That shift—from legal abstraction to product clarity—is often the fastest way to neutralize a blocker.
Because when you make the real-world difference obvious, the legal difference becomes harder to deny.
Distill the Rejection Into a Single Strategic Question
One exercise that works incredibly well before an examiner interview is to try boiling the rejection down into a single strategic question.
For example:
Does the examiner believe that feature X in prior art Y performs the same function as our claim?
Is the examiner reading “automated” as including rule-based systems, even when our claim is about machine learning?
Does the examiner think the cited system anticipates our unique triggering mechanism?
Once you have that question, you’ve found the heart of the interview.
Your entire agenda should now revolve around answering it—clearly, convincingly, and with the right evidence.
If you try to answer every side issue instead, you’ll miss your shot to resolve the one thing that matters.
And that’s what leads to stalled applications, extra filings, and missed value.
Turn Blockers Into Leverage Points
Here’s a mindset shift that can change how you approach examiner interviews forever.
Blockers aren’t just problems. They’re leverage points.
They show you where the examiner’s assumptions are breaking down.
They highlight where your language, claim structure, or examples might need to evolve. And they reveal what the examiner actually cares about.
That’s valuable data.
Use it to adjust your claim scope in a way that keeps your competitive edge intact. Use it to shape future continuation filings.
Use it to reframe your invention in simpler terms. And use it to prepare a focused, persuasive narrative that leaves no ambiguity in the room.
When you do that, blockers stop being frustrating—they start becoming opportunities.
They give you a clearer path to allowance, and often a stronger patent in the end.
Build a Story, Not a List
Your Patent Is Part of a Bigger Narrative—Treat It That Way
If you’re building a startup or scaling a new technology, you already know the power of storytelling.
You use it to pitch investors, attract talent, and sell your vision to the market.
That same skill—storytelling—can completely transform the way you approach an examiner interview.
Most patent interviews fail to land not because the ideas are weak, but because the delivery is disjointed.
Founders show up with a checklist of talking points. They jump from one issue to the next, hoping that somewhere in the pile of rebuttals, something sticks.
But that’s not how minds are changed.
You change minds by guiding someone through a clear, intentional story—one that starts with context, highlights the problem, introduces your unique solution, and ends with a reason to say yes.
The examiner is not just reviewing claim language.
They’re trying to piece together a coherent picture of your invention. Your job is to make that picture impossible to misread.
That’s why your agenda must flow like a narrative. Because a story sticks. A list gets lost.
Design the Meeting Like You Would a Pitch Deck
When raising capital, you don’t just show up and read bullet points. You frame the problem.
You show why existing solutions fall short. You unveil your unique approach. You make it obvious why your way is better.
That same logic applies to your examiner interview.
Before the meeting, take time to organize your points into a logical sequence. Start by anchoring the conversation in your invention’s purpose.
Then build up to the parts of your claim that matter most.
Introduce the prior art not as an enemy, but as a reference point—and show how it falls short in light of your actual implementation.
Don’t jump between claim elements randomly. Don’t reference prior art like isolated puzzle pieces. Tell the full story.
This helps the examiner understand, not just evaluate.
And once they understand the “why” behind your invention, they’re far more likely to reconsider the “no.”
Make It Easy for the Examiner to Retell Your Story
Here’s something most applicants don’t consider: your job isn’t just to convince the examiner during the call.
Your job is to equip them to explain your position clearly after the call—when they’re writing notes, updating internal files, or discussing your case with a supervisor.
If your interview feels like a scattered list of micro-arguments, that story won’t carry over.
But if your message is structured, clear, and memorable, it will.
This means your story should not only persuade—it should be retellable. That’s the mark of a strong agenda.
When the examiner can walk away and say, “The applicant’s position is that their system reacts dynamically based on contextual signals, not pre-set rules, which the cited reference doesn’t teach,” you’ve done your job.
That clarity creates momentum. And momentum moves applications forward.
Use the Story to Frame the Claim, Not Just Defend It
Many founders go into the interview assuming they have to defend the language of the claim as written. But that’s only part of the equation.
Your bigger opportunity is to use the story to frame the claim—so the examiner reads it in the right light, not just the strictest possible way.
If your claim includes terms like “adaptive,” “predictive,” or “context-sensitive,” don’t just point to the dictionary definition.
Show how your invention acts adaptively. Walk through a scenario. Use plain language to bridge the technical idea to a real-world function.
The more vividly the examiner sees the claim in action, the less likely they are to misinterpret it or map it incorrectly to prior art.
And if you’re considering amending the claim, use your story to make that change feel obvious and natural—not like a concession, but like a clarification.
This keeps the power dynamic in your favor. You’re guiding the outcome, not reacting to it.
A Strong Narrative Minimizes Misunderstandings
So many rejections stem from one root cause: misunderstanding.
The examiner misunderstood what the claim was trying to say. Or what the technology actually does.
Or how it differs from something that looks similar on paper.
When your agenda is just a list, you’re leaving room for those gaps to stay open.
But when your agenda is a story—one that builds logically, speaks clearly, and connects the dots—you close those gaps.
That makes your interview not only more persuasive but more efficient.
You spend less time explaining and more time aligning. Less time arguing and more time progressing.
And in the fast-moving world of startups, that time saved can be the difference between landing funding with a solid patent in hand—or missing the moment.
Prepare to Flex
Rigidity Kills Progress—Agility Drives Results
An examiner interview is not a scripted performance.
It’s a live negotiation. And like any negotiation, the real value is created in how you respond when things don’t go exactly as planned.
You might walk in with a tight agenda. A clear narrative.
A well-rehearsed pitch. But the moment the examiner challenges something unexpected, everything shifts.
This is the moment many founders freeze—or worse, dig in defensively. And that’s where momentum stalls.
Instead, walk in expecting to flex. Build your plan around adaptability, not just precision.
This doesn’t mean being vague or unprepared.
It means knowing what matters most and being ready to shift the conversation without losing sight of your end goal.
Think of it like running a startup. Your product roadmap might change. Your pitch might evolve. But your mission doesn’t.
Examiner interviews are no different. You adjust tactics, not strategy.
Build Your “Plan B” Scenarios in Advance
Flexibility is easier when it’s pre-planned.
Before the interview, think through the most likely pivots the examiner might force. If they interpret a term more broadly than you intended, how will you respond?
If they push for a narrower claim, which parts are you willing to concede without compromising your core protection?
Having these scenarios outlined ahead of time keeps you calm and strategic in the moment. You won’t scramble.
You won’t stall. You’ll guide the conversation, even when the path changes.
It also makes you appear more credible and professional to the examiner. You’re not reacting emotionally. You’re navigating intelligently.
This is a huge advantage—especially when building long-term rapport with the patent office.
Treat the Examiner’s Curveballs as Invitations, Not Obstacles
When an examiner raises a new point or challenges your interpretation, that’s not an attack.
It’s an invitation to explore a different angle. An opening to shift the lens. And sometimes, it’s the moment you uncover a smarter way forward.
You might find a more precise way to describe your feature. Or a narrower claim that still boxes out competitors.
Or an insight that helps shape your future continuation strategy.
These moments only show up if you stay open to them. If you lock into a fixed script, you miss the opportunity.
But if you treat every twist as a chance to add clarity, you create space for alignment—and that’s where patents get allowed.
This is why flexibility isn’t just tactical. It’s strategic. It shows you’re leading the conversation, not just responding to it.
Keep One Eye on the Long Game
Every decision you make during the interview—whether to stand firm, concede a point, or propose a new amendment—should be made with the long game in mind.
What will this change mean for your competitive position a year from now?
Will this amendment block out the copycats already circling your space?
Does narrowing a claim now open up new continuation pathways later?
When you’re prepared to flex, but grounded in strategic clarity, you can make these decisions confidently. You won’t overreact to pressure.
You won’t give up more than necessary. And you won’t lose sight of the business impact behind every word you choose.
That’s the difference between a good patent and a strategic one.
Wrapping It Up
A well-run examiner interview isn’t just a way to fix a rejection. It’s a way to own your patent process, shape your claim strategy, and protect your long-term business edge. The founders who treat these meetings as a formality often walk away with watered-down protection—or none at all. But the ones who come in with clarity, story, strategy, and flexibility? They come out ahead.
