When you’re filing a patent, one small decision can make a big difference. One of those early calls is figuring out who to talk to at the USPTO—the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Should you talk to the SPE? Or the Primary Examiner? Or both?
What’s the difference between an SPE and a Primary Examiner?
Understanding roles like a strategist—not just a filer
If you’re building a startup or running a growing tech business, this isn’t just trivia.
Knowing the difference between a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) and a Primary Examiner is about understanding how decisions get made inside the USPTO—and how you can influence those decisions to protect your invention faster and better.
The mistake many first-time filers make is treating the patent office like a black box. They submit something and hope for the best.
But the reality is, just like in business, relationships and communication inside the system can shape your outcomes.
Let’s go deeper into how these roles actually function—and how they affect your strategy.
The Primary Examiner is your first gatekeeper
Every patent application gets routed to an examiner. If your technology is mature and well-known, it might go straight to a Primary Examiner.
These are examiners who have passed a certification process showing they can make decisions independently.
That means they can approve your patent without asking for higher-level review.
That’s powerful for you—because if you have a solid application, and you engage early, you might be able to move your application along much faster.
The Primary Examiner has the authority to say yes.
If your invention is assigned to a junior examiner, the story changes a bit. They may do the initial review, but they can’t allow a patent on their own.
They need sign-off from their SPE or from a Primary Examiner supervising them. That means the junior examiner might want to avoid risk.
They may stick closely to the rules, reject more freely, or hesitate to make bold decisions.
This is where being strategic matters.
If you know your application is being handled by a junior examiner, it’s smart to plan for more touchpoints.
You might need to involve the Primary or SPE earlier.
You may need to explain things more clearly, provide stronger evidence, or even shift how you present your invention’s value.
Understanding who you’re talking to changes how you communicate.
The SPE sets the tone behind the scenes
The SPE isn’t the person reading every word of your application—but they still matter a lot.
They’re responsible for the team. They coach the examiners. They push for consistency. And they set priorities.
That includes decisions on how strict the team is about certain types of claims, how much time is spent on complex filings, and how flexible they are in gray areas.
For example, if your invention touches on AI, machine learning, or decentralized systems, you might fall into a tech category that’s still evolving.
Some art units are stricter than others in those areas. The SPE plays a major role in shaping how those technologies are reviewed.
So if your examiner seems stuck, unreasonably strict, or inconsistent, there’s a good chance the SPE’s influence is behind it.
Reaching out to the SPE—at the right time and in the right way—can give you a fresh perspective.
It might even shift how your case is handled, especially if you’re dealing with ambiguity.
Why this matters for founders and decision-makers
Most founders aren’t thinking about the internal hierarchy at the USPTO. They’re focused on building. On launching. On funding.
But here’s the truth: delays at the patent office don’t just slow your application—they slow your business.
They affect investor confidence. They limit your ability to license. They expose you to copycats. And they leave you in a legal gray zone.
So understanding the power dynamics—Primary versus SPE—isn’t just tactical. It’s protective. It gives you more control.
When you know who’s making the call, you can align your strategy. You can speak their language. You can remove friction before it becomes expensive.
And that’s how you turn the patent process from a cost center into a real business asset.
Action steps to level up your approach
If you’re early in your patent process, start by figuring out who your examiner is. You can find this information once your application is published or assigned.
If it’s a Primary Examiner, great—you can start planning a direct line of communication after your first office action.
If it’s a junior examiner, ask your legal partner (or your PowerPatent support team) whether it makes sense to include a Primary in any interviews.
If there are signs of confusion or disagreement, don’t wait for the third or fourth rejection. Ask to escalate earlier.
And if you’re facing a tech category that’s evolving fast—like generative AI, quantum security, or autonomous systems—it might make sense to involve the SPE upfront, especially if you’re working on a second or third filing in the same space.
That way, you’re not just reacting. You’re shaping the conversation.
This level of proactivity doesn’t just lead to better outcomes. It positions you as a credible, organized, and serious innovator.
Which, let’s be honest, is exactly how you want to show up when your future IP is on the line.
When to talk to a Primary Examiner
The timing that makes all the difference
For a lot of founders, the idea of calling up a government examiner might feel strange or intimidating.
But in the patent world, these conversations aren’t just allowed—they’re expected.
And when done right, they can completely change the direction and outcome of your patent.
The trick is knowing when to reach out. It’s not about reacting.
It’s about choosing the moment when the conversation can actually move things forward. That moment is usually right after your first office action.
That’s the formal letter from the examiner telling you what’s not working in your application.
It might be a rejection, or just some clarifications or adjustments needed. Either way, that’s your chance to turn a cold review process into a real dialogue.
But timing is more than just reacting to a document.
There are moments where a well-placed conversation with the Primary Examiner can unlock momentum that paperwork alone never could.
The early office action advantage
The first office action is where the foundation of the relationship gets built.
If you engage right away, it shows the examiner you’re serious, informed, and willing to work together.
That can set a cooperative tone that helps through the entire life of the application.
If you wait too long—say, after two or three back-and-forths—you risk creating friction. The examiner may already be entrenched in their view.
They may feel like your side isn’t responding clearly. And the SPE might now be looped in to resolve deeper issues.
So if you want a faster allowance, less stress, and better claim strength, use the first office action as your opening.
Have your patent attorney or agent reach out to schedule the interview. Don’t treat it as a formality.
Treat it as a key strategic move. And prepare for it like you would a pitch or investor call—with clarity, data, and a clear ask.
Knowing when you have leverage
Sometimes the facts are on your side. You might have strong evidence that the examiner missed a detail.
Or you might have claim language that clearly distinguishes your invention from prior art.
In these cases, a conversation with the Primary Examiner can be more than clarifying—it can shift the entire direction of the case.
But you don’t want to come off combative.
You want to show that you respect their process and judgment, while offering a clearer view of your invention’s value.
This is where strategic founders shine. They use the interview not to win an argument, but to build a shared understanding.
A good strategy in these situations is to highlight the commercial application of the invention.
Explain why certain features matter in the real world. Show how they solve a technical problem in a novel way.
You’re not selling the examiner. You’re helping them see the logic more fully.
This often opens the door to more creative claim drafting or quicker allowances.
Dealing with nuanced rejections
Not all office actions are black and white. Sometimes the rejection is technical but vague. Or maybe the examiner is relying on prior art that feels loosely related.
This is where silence can cost you.
If you just file a written response, the examiner may miss your point—or interpret it narrowly.
But in a direct conversation, you can clarify exactly what makes your solution different.
Many founders don’t realize that Primary Examiners are open to this. They’re not trying to block good inventions.
They just need clear reasons to justify their decisions.
So if your claims were rejected due to “obviousness” or “lack of novelty,” use the interview to explain the why behind your design choices.
Why did you choose this particular architecture? What makes it hard to replicate? Why does it matter in practice?
Framing these differences clearly in real time helps the examiner understand your position.
And often, it gives them what they need to either allow the claim—or guide you on how to fix it.
Moving fast without losing strength
Startups don’t have time to wait 3–5 years for a patent. Yet, rushing to allowance without strong claims can hurt you more than help you.
That’s why talking to the Primary Examiner early is so valuable.
It lets you ask the right question: “What would it take to get this allowed, without giving up core protection?”
When you ask this, you’re showing you’re ready to find common ground. You’re not pushing for a win at all costs. You’re building trust.
And when trust is built, things move faster.
You might get a suggestion to revise a claim element. Or you might get an indication that some claims are allowable as-is.
Either way, you’re getting clarity—and clarity is what speeds up outcomes.
PowerPatent bakes this type of strategic outreach right into the workflow. Instead of waiting for delays, we help inventors go on offense early.
That way, your patent isn’t just moving—it’s moving with purpose.
When the Primary isn’t enough
What to do when things get stuck—and why it matters
Sometimes, even when you’ve done everything right, things stall. You’ve responded to the office action.
You’ve had a respectful, clear discussion with the Primary Examiner. But still, the same objections keep coming back. You’re not making progress.
This is the moment when good patent strategy separates from great patent strategy.
Knowing when to escalate to the SPE isn’t just about frustration.
It’s about recognizing that your application—and your business—can’t afford to sit in limbo.
If the process is stuck and it’s blocking you from moving forward, you need to shift the energy. That’s what the SPE is there for.
The SPE has the authority to review how an examiner is handling a case. They’re not there to reverse decisions casually.
But they are responsible for making sure everything is being handled fairly and consistently within their art unit.
Spotting signs of examiner entrenchment
In some cases, the Primary Examiner might feel committed to their interpretation of the prior art or to their view of the claim scope.
That’s not personal—it’s part of the job. But if your explanations and claim amendments still aren’t shifting the conversation, it could mean the examiner is now entrenched.
You might see this when your responses are being dismissed with almost identical language.
Or when arguments are being overlooked without meaningful analysis.
Or when you’re providing new evidence or technical distinctions, and they’re not being addressed directly.
These are red flags. Not of bad faith, but of a process that needs a second set of eyes.
That’s when inviting the SPE into the dialogue can bring much-needed clarity—and even reset the tone of the interaction.
How to invite the SPE the right way
This isn’t about going over the examiner’s head. It’s about widening the circle to get more perspective.
The best way to bring the SPE into the conversation is through your interview request.
You can note that you’d like to include the SPE in the upcoming call, or if the issues have been persistent, request a supervisory-level review.
Timing is everything. Don’t make the SPE your first call. Make sure you’ve had at least one solid back-and-forth with the Primary.
That shows respect for the process—and gives the SPE a reason to take a fresh look.
When you include the SPE, your job isn’t to argue your case again. It’s to frame the issue simply and clearly.
Explain what’s been tried. Share where you believe the misunderstanding is happening. Then ask for their guidance.
Position the conversation as a request for insight, not an appeal.
That shift in tone can make a big difference.
Using escalation as a tool—not a tactic
One of the most common mistakes businesses make is using escalation out of emotion. They feel blocked.
They get frustrated. And they escalate because it feels like the only lever left.
But smart founders—and the teams they work with—use escalation as a tool. It’s not a last resort.
It’s a strategic move to resolve ambiguity, prevent unnecessary delay, and get a decision that reflects the real merit of the invention.
If your business depends on this patent—for funding, licensing, or competitive edge—then stuck applications cost more than just time.
They create uncertainty. That uncertainty can ripple across product launches, investor negotiations, and M&A due diligence.
So if your case has been spinning its wheels, and you’ve done the foundational work with the Primary, looping in the SPE can be the smartest business move on the table.
How PowerPatent makes escalation easier
One of the hidden strengths of combining smart software with real legal oversight is knowing exactly when—and how—to take things to the next level.
At PowerPatent, our system tracks how long a case has been pending, how many times it’s been rejected, and what patterns are emerging.
When it looks like progress has stalled, our team helps decide whether an SPE conversation is the right step—and if it is, we prep the strategy and message to make sure it’s done right.
Escalation isn’t about making noise. It’s about knowing which voice to bring into the room—and when to invite them.
When done thoughtfully, that voice can turn a stalled process into a successful outcome.
What if you haven’t filed yet?
Why your strategy starts before you hit submit
Most founders wait until they’ve already filed a patent application to start thinking about the USPTO.
But in reality, some of the most valuable moves happen before you ever click submit.
If you’re building something complex, disruptive, or deeply technical, your filing strategy isn’t just a legal formality—it’s an early-stage business decision.
It can influence how defensible your product becomes, how fast you get patent coverage, and how confident your investors feel when they evaluate your IP portfolio.
That’s why some founders—especially in deep tech—engage with the USPTO at a more strategic level even before filing.
Not in a casual way, but through deliberate, high-leverage moves designed to avoid landmines before they appear.
When to consider early engagement with the SPE
You don’t usually talk to a Primary Examiner before filing. That’s because there’s no assigned examiner yet.
But the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) is different.
They oversee the entire art unit—the group of examiners who handle applications in your technology area.
If you’re developing something that doesn’t fit neatly into a well-understood category, or if your tech touches regulated, sensitive, or fast-evolving areas—think AI for healthcare, blockchain in financial systems, or hybrid energy platforms—your filing could trigger delays or confusion later on if it’s not framed properly from the start.
That’s where early interaction with the SPE can be game-changing. It gives you insight into how their unit is currently reviewing similar technologies.
It helps you avoid language that might raise red flags. It helps you anchor your claims in a way that aligns with how they think.
This isn’t something most attorneys offer.
But when done correctly—with focus, preparation, and a clear reason—it can cut months off your review timeline and drastically reduce rejections.
Getting smart before the first move
There’s a quiet truth in the patent world: most delays aren’t caused by bad inventions.
They’re caused by unclear claims, weak context, or poor positioning. All of that can be fixed before filing—but only if you’re thinking ahead.
For businesses, this matters because early mistakes multiply. A vague filing today might lead to three years of confusion.
An overly narrow claim might block you from owning the key parts of your technology later.
And a mismatch between your filing language and the examiner’s framework could get your application assigned to the wrong art unit entirely.
That one misstep can send your patent down a dead-end road—costing you time, money, and trust with investors.
So the more strategic move is to treat your filing like a product launch. Study the space. Understand how examiners have handled similar inventions.
Review issued patents in your domain. If needed, request a brief pre-filing conversation through your legal partner with the SPE to confirm alignment.
Even a short, focused touchpoint can steer your strategy in a better direction.
The PowerPatent advantage before filing
At PowerPatent, this thinking is built into how we help founders prepare to file. We don’t just convert your code or model into patent language.
We help you shape your narrative in a way that aligns with how real examiners actually read and decide on applications.
Our platform connects software insights with real attorney oversight—so you’re not guessing how your invention might be received.
We look at what’s worked in your art unit. We watch trends in similar filings. And we help you avoid the most common early-stage mistakes.
That way, when you do file, you’re not just submitting a form. You’re launching a patent application that’s clear, aligned, and positioned for success.
That’s how smart startups file faster—and win stronger IP.
Wrapping It Up
If you’ve made it this far, you already know more than most about how the USPTO actually works. You understand that filing a patent isn’t just about documents—it’s about decisions. Timing. Strategy. Relationships.
Leave a Reply