Section 18: Substantive examination and grant or refusal of patent
Sections (18.01 - 18.99) last updated: October 2026.
18.01
This section sets out the conditions necessary for an application to proceed to substantive examination, makes provision for carrying out the examination and reporting the result, provides for the applicant making observations on the report and if necessary amending the application, specifies that a patent may then be granted or refused, and finally deals with the case of conflicting applications from the same applicant. Time limits and other provisions relating to these matters are prescribed in rr.28, 29 and 30.
18.01.1
s.118(2) is also relevant
Combined search and examination actions are generally carried out before A publication, and accelerated examinations may also be performed before A publication. The guidance in this section therefore relates in part to pre-publication actions. Before A publication, the application, the search, examination or combined search and examination report, and any other documents or information concerning the content of the application (other than that prescribed under s.118(3)) must be protected and must not be communicated to anyone outside the Office other than the applicant or their designated representative – see 118.16 to 118.16.1 for further guidance on these issues.
18.01.2
More generally, in all cases, whether pre-or post-publication, it should be ensured that any communications (including telephone conversations) are directed to the intended recipient.
[Where correspondence from the Office is reported as never having arrived at its intended destination, or is reported as being misdirected or delayed, this fact should be recorded by adding a note to the Timeline of the relevance case in the One IPO internal system with any relevant details, and notifying the relevant formalities group. Use of r.111 to extend a deadline may only be authorised by the relevant Secure Examination Support Manager (see 123.47.1.]
18.01.3
The Code of Practice (the second part of which can be found below) identifies best practice points for patent applicants and agents, which if followed widely will lead to savings and efficiencies in the Office, and consequently to better service and better value. Examiners and other Office officials may on occasion draw the Code to the attention of the applicant or agent, and may ask for it to be complied with before the application is processed further if that would be more efficient.
18.01.4
However, it is not to be expected that best practice can always be adhered to. The Office has no right to demand compliance with the Code of Practice because the Code is advisory only and has no legal force.
18.01.5
If an application does not comply with one of the points of the Code of Practice then this does not necessarily justify an objection under the Patents Act or Rules. For example, an application having more than one independent claim in one category would not comply with code point 1e, but this would not usually justify an objection under s.14(5)(b). When drawing attention to non-compliance with the Code of Practice, examiners should therefore make it clear whether they are also raising a formal objection under the Act or Rules.
[Code of practice for applicants and agents]
This part of the Code of Practice relates to the prosecution of patent applications. The process of examination and amendment of patent applications ideally proceeds by eliminating objections until the application can be granted. To expedite the granting of an application, the substantive examiner will attempt to indicate all objections in the first report issued under s.18(3). The main exception to this will occur where only major objections (such as patentability issues) are raised and minor matters are deferred until the major points have been settled. This process of eliminating objections minimises the time taken conducting a comprehensive review of the specification as it will generally only be necessary to decide whether or not the amendments or arguments advanced meet the objections raised. However, for this process to be efficient for both sides it is necessary that the following points are observed.
- a) a full response should be made to each and every objection raised in an examination report through amendment and/or argument so as to progress the application towards grant see 18.63-18.63.3
- b) when objections are to be met by amendment, an appropriate explanation should be provided, in particular, as to how the amendment meets the objection and how it is supported by the specification as originally filed [see 18.63-18.63.3
- c) amendments must neither add new technical disclosure, nor broaden the scope of claims beyond the disclosure as originally filed (see 76.04 to 76.23)
- d) pages showing the amendments, in manuscript or distinctive type, should be filed in addition to the clean replacement pages for the specification (see 18.61)
- e) consequential amendment of the description may be deferred until the independent claims have been agreed upon (see 18.52)
- f) the Office recommends the use of electronic filing when submitting amended pages or arguments in response to the examiner’s objections, whether the original application was filed electronically or not. See Apply for a patent
The efficiency of the patent granting process depends in no small part on the timeliness of the Office as well as of applicants and agents. The Office will set a timetable for the various stages in processing a patent application to grant, by setting periods for responding to various Office letters and reports. Applicants and agents should use their best endeavours to act within the periods for response that will be specified. Requests for extensions of those periods for response will be considered if made in the recommended way and in accordance with the legislation relating to extensions of time. Requests for processing to be accelerated will also considered if made in the recommended way.
- a) action should be taken within a period specified for response; and not delayed until the last day if that is avoidable
- b) a request for extension of a period for response should be made in a timely manner. The request may be e-mailed to the dedicated pateot@ipo.gov.uk email address (see Requesting an extension of time by e-mail) in which case, an automatic acknowledgement of receipt will be issued. Alternatively, the extension may be requested in the response letter itself. Where an as-of-right extension is not available, the request should be supported by an adequate reason that is peculiar to the circumstances of the case (see 18.53 - 18.60, particularly 18.57.1)
- c) a request for accelerated processing of search or examination should be supported by an adequate reason that is peculiar to the circumstances of the case (see 17.05.1-2 and 18.07 - 18.07.3).
- d) when time is short, the covering letters accompanying responses to Office actions should be marked “urgent” (see 18.72.1)
- e) notification of withdrawal of an application must reach us before the date on which preparations for publication are completed if it is wished to prevent publication: the publication process does not permit later withdrawals (see 14.205).
- f) voluntary amendments should be filed early (see 19.13)
- a) divisional applications should be filed early as time is limited under rule 30 (see 15.20.2
- b) a divisional application should have a single claimed invention (or inventive concept) that is distinct from that of the parent application (see 15.20.2 and 15.29)
- c) the description and drawings of the divisional application should be provided in a form appropriate to the invention of the divisional application, and irrelevant material excised (see 15.32)
- d) amendments already known to be required at the date of filing of the divisional application should be made (see 15.32)
- e) a cover letter should be included with the filing of a divisional application indicating where the claims derive support from in the parent application.
If the above points are not met on filing a divisional application, suitable amendments should be filed as soon as possible (see 15.36).
- a) information about changes should be notified promptly and by the recommended method. Global changes affecting more than one patent application should be notified by one communication, with a list of the patent application numbers (or patents) appended. The distinction between amendment and correction should be appreciated (see 19.03), and where a correction is proposed, sufficient evidence demonstrating that the correction was the applicant’s intention at the time of filing should be provided (see 117.19). Supporting proof where needed should be adequate to establish and verify the circumstances.
Change of address (only): a letter will suffice for this, whether it is amendment or correction (see 19.05, 117.03).
Change of agent: Form 51 is used for this amendment (see 14.04.12).
Appointment of an agent for the first time (after the filing date): Form 51 is used
Amendment or correction of other data on the application form: Form 20 is used for correction of an applicant’s name, and may require supporting proof. All other amendments or corrections should be made in writing (see 19.05 to 19.12 and 117.17 to 117.21).
Amendment of name (ownership) in the Register: Form 20 is used and may require supporting proof (see 32.06).
| Section 18(1) |
| Where the conditions imposed by section 17(1) above for the comptroller to refer an application to an examiner for a search are satisfied and at the time of the request under that subsection or within the prescribed period (a) a request is made by the applicant to the Patent Office in the prescribed form for a substantive examination; and (b) the prescribed fee is paid for the examination; the comptroller shall refer the application to an examiner for a substantive examination; and if no such request is made or the prescribed fee is not paid within that period, the application shall be treated as having been withdrawn at the end of that period. |
18.02
(r.28(1) and r.28(2) are also relevant)
The request for substantive examination must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, including any excess pages fees. When made on paper, the request must be made using Patents Form 10. The request for substantive examination must be made within six months of the date of publication of the application under s.16, unless the application falls into one of the categories referred to in (a)-(d) below:-
r.28(5) is also relevant
(a) for an application which claims an earlier date of filing under s.8(3), 12(6), 15(9) or 37(4), the request and the fee must be submitted within two months of filing the application or, if it expires later, within two years of the declared priority date, or, where there is no declared priority date, within two years of the date treated as the date of filing;
r.28(3) is also relevant
(b) for an application not falling within (a) above whose publication under s.16 has been prohibited or delayed because of a direction made under s.22(1) or (2), the request and the fee must be submitted within two years of the declared priority date, or, where there is no declared priority date, of the date of filing;
(c) for an application which has been converted from one for a European patent (UK) the period is governed by r.60, (see 81.17);
(d) for an international application for a patent (UK), the period is governed by r.68(4), see 89B.09.
In the case of an application in category (a), (b), (c) or (d), the period prescribed for submitting the request and the fee can be extended in accordance with r.108(2) or (3) together with r.108(5) to (7), see 123.34-41.
18.03
The request for substantive examination and the examination fee, including any excess pages fees, can be submitted at any time before the end of the prescribed period; it may be submitted at the time of making the application if the applicant so wishes. Applications on which requests for both search (see 17.02) and substantive examination are submitted at the time of making the application(apart from PCT s.89 applications where an international search report has been communicated to the Office) will receive combined search and examination before publication under s.16. If an applicant has initially requested only a search and later requests substantive examination before the search has commenced, then in the interests of efficiency the application may be subject to Combined Search and Examination (CS&E)(N.B. to avoid a Combined Search and Examination, applicants should request for substantive examination after the search report has been issued). However, in such cases the search and examination can only be combined if the examiner is aware of the request before beginning the search. A request for a refund of the examination fee and also of the search fee for combined search and examination applications is normally acceded to if it is received before issue of the substantive examiner’s report. However, the examination fee is not refunded if following combined search and examination a search report under s.17(5) has issued and the examination has been performed but no report under s.18 has issued (see 18.84.1). In all cases such refunds are a matter of discretion, not a right.
| Section 18(1A) |
| If the examiner forms the view that a supplementary search under section 17 above is required for which a fee is payable, he shall inform the comptroller, who may decide that the substantive examination should not proceed until the fee is paid; and if he so decides, then unless within such period as he may allow (a) the fee is paid, or (b) the application is amended so as to render the supplementary search unnecessary, he may refuse the application. |
18.03.1
Subsection (1A) gives powers to the comptroller where an applicant’s action makes a supplementary search necessary at the substantive examination stage. Section 17(8) provides for the payment of a fee for such a search (see 17.120-123).
18.03.2
If, before or during substantive examination, the substantive examiner reports that a supplementary search is necessitated by an amendment or correction as referred to in 17.120-123, the applicant may be so informed in a letter giving a specified period to pay the fee or amend the application so as to remove the need for the search or submit observations, and warning that the application may otherwise be refused. Where such an amendment is submitted but fails to remove the need for the search, the matter is pursued until either a satisfactory amendment is filed or the fee is paid, or it becomes evident that the dispute cannot be resolved.
[ Senior Examiners may decide whether to take action under ss.17(8) and 18(1A), without reference to their Group Head; Examiners should consult their senior officer as to the appropriate decision. Such action should be initiated by issuing EL27 in which the period specified for response should normally be two months. This period may need to be reduced if the application is approaching the end of the compliance period; if there is less than 6 months remaining of the compliance period the reply period should not be set at longer than 1 month. Appropriate timeframes should be decided by the examiner if less than 3 months of the compliance period remain. When issuing EL27, the case examiner should create a “Diary Date” in One IPO for reconsideration of the application 5 months from the date on which they write the instructions. The diary date should be completed if a response is received before the due date. If amendments are unsatisfactory or the applicant disputes the need for the search, or search fee, the matter should be pursued by letter or telephone (confirmed in writing) with the aim of swift resolution so that the normal examination process can commence or continue without undue delay. If no response is received the examiner should write or telephone (confirming in writing) to enquire if it is the applicant’s intention not to proceed, emphasising that if no action is taken the application will be treated as refused at the end of the compliance period. It should be made clear that genuine reasons for the late filing should accompany any subsequent response. The case examiner should be named and a contact telephone number provided in all letters to the applicant or their agent. ]
18.03.3
s.17(6) and s.17(8) is also relevant
Where a further search is performed, at the request of the applicant, for a second or subsequent invention which was claimed in the application as filed and which was identified in the search report, section 17(6) rather than section 17(8) applies and the procedure is that set out in 17.111, etc. If, however, amendment to remove plurality of invention results in the deletion of claims to an invention which was searched at the search stage in favour of an invention which was present at that stage but which was not so searched, a search fee under section 17(8) should be required if a further search is then necessary at substantive examination (see 18.41.
[ Although no refund is given, an additional search fee is not required for a second invention in a divisional application when a search report has issued in respect of the first invention in the divisional application, where this first invention was already searched in connection with the parent application (see 15.38), and then a further search becomes necessary for the second, previously unsearched invention in the divisional application sometime later due to the deletion of the first (and previously searched) invention.]
18.03.4
s17(8) is also relevant
If an applicant submits another search request and fee in anticipation of the amendments made necessitating a further search under section 17(8) and the substantive examiner does not consider such a search to be necessary, then a refund of the fee paid should be made, even if no specific request therefor has been made by the applicant.
18.03.5
If, following the issue of the letter referred to in 18.03.2, there is such an unresolved dispute and/or if the fee is not paid or any other requirement of this provision is not met, a hearing is offered. If the hearing officer decides that examination should not proceed until the fee is paid or the application amended, they should specify a period (normally two months) for payment or appropriate amendment. If neither action is taken within the specified period they may refuse the application.
A hearing may be offered by Senior Examiners but Examiners should consult their senior officer as to the appropriate decision. The hearing should be taken by a hearing officer who is authorised to act for the comptroller (see 130.05.1).
18.03.6
the appropriate fee has been paid, together with a search request, the substantive examiner performs the supplementary search. A search report is issued; this may accompany a s.18 examination report.
[If the search report is issued with a s.18 report, it should be issued alongside an SE6 or SL7 letter as appropriate; SL7 should otherwise be used. Any newly-cited documents should be issued at the same time (see 17.104.1 to 17.105.2).]
[The SL7 letter should be used where a supplementary search is carried out at the same time as a substantive examination which finds no objections. The SL7 may precede the intention to grant letter. The examiner should create an SL7 letter in the Supplementary search case and then complete a grant form in the Examination case 18.86.2 before notifying the EA team in the usual way.]
Section 18(2)
On a substantive examination of an application the examiner shall investigate, to such extent as he considers necessary in view of any examination carried out under section 15A above and search carried out under section 17 above, whether the application complies with the requirements of this Act and the rules and shall determine that question and report his determination to the comptroller.
18.04
After substantive examination has been requested but before an examining group undertakes the substantive examination, the formalities examiner should examine any new pages for compliance with r.14 and Schedule 2. Any objections should be reported in a form suitable for inclusion in the letter which constitutes the examiner’s report under s.18(3) (see 18.47).
18.05
[Deleted]
18.06
The application will initially be assigned to the examining group responsible for the subclass where the primary search had been performed (if combined search and examination has been requested, the application should be allocated by the appropriate group as indicated in 17.03. The application may be transferred by mutual agreement to a different subclass before substantive examination if, for example, it had transpired during the search that the other subclass would be more suitable, or if amendment of the specification has rendered transfer appropriate, or if subject-matter has been transferred on reclassification. The substantive examiner should aim to deal with applications allocated to them within 18 months of their s.16 publication date but they should normally examine these applications in order of their priority dates, unless the application qualifies for combined search and examination, in which case the search and examination should be done so that the search report and any report under s.18(3) can issue within six months of the date on which search was requested (for divisional applications see see 15.41-15.42).
[When an application which qualifies for combined search and examination is received in an examining group, it will take its normal place amongst pending searches (unless accelerated search has been requested - 17.05.1-2).]
[Examiners in particular should be aware of the different procedures which apply when processing combined search and examination applications. Reference should be made to the examiners’ aide-memoire for combined search and examination applications in 18.98.]
18.07
A request for accelerated substantive examination of an application, which the applicant should mark appropriately to ensure prompt action, may be allowed provided that the request:
a) gives adequate reasons why acceleration is needed (see 17.05.1-2 or paragraph 6.2 of the Patents Fast Grant Guidance; or
b) meets the requirements for acceleration through the “Green Channel” (see 17.05.1-2 or paragraph 6.2 of the Patents Fast Grant Guidance); or
c) meets the requirements for acceleration under the PCT(UK) Fast Track (see 89B.17); or
d) meets the requirements for acceleration under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) (see 18.07.1).
A request for acceleration should be made through the One IPO patents system, in which accelerated search, accelerated examination and accelerated publication can all be requested by selecting “request acceleration” under “manage application”. Less preferably, an acceleration request can also be made in writing, (as a covering letter). Requests submitted through the One IPO “request acceleration” route are readily identified upon submission. It is possible to exercise discretion to accept an acceleration request by email; however this practice should not be encouraged. If a request for acceleration is sent direct to an examiner then they should forward it to the examiner assistants. If the request is made before publication, the applicant should indicate whether or not publication before the end of the 18 month period prescribed under s.16 is also requested. If, prior to publication, an applicant makes a request for accelerated substantive examination but does not indicate explicitly that accelerated publication is required, then it will be assumed that accelerated publication is not needed and no effort should be made to contact the applicant regarding accelerated publication. If, however, there is uncertainty over whether a request is for accelerated substantive examination and/or accelerated publication (e.g. the applicant simply requests ‘‘accelerated processing’’) then SES should contact the applicant to clarify their intention. Requests giving no, or inadequate reasons should be refused. (See also 18.87).
[ Accelerated examination requests are dealt with by examiner assistants. For guidance on the processing of accelerated further searches, see the first square bracket of 17.05.1.]
[On receipt of a request for accelerated examination, the examiner assistant should consider it as a matter of urgency, and report to the applicant/agent whether it is allowable. This should be done either by letter or by telephone (followed up by a report), and the accelerated case approved in One IPO. ]
[When the substantive examiner has done the substantive examination and identified objections, and if a letter has not yet been issued confirming allowance of the acceleration request, then ELC30 may be included in their reports. See 18.07.2 for the situation where an examination report is likely to be issued earlier than three months after publication. ]
18.07.1
A request for accelerated processing of an application under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) will be allowed providing the relevant PPH requirements are met. These requirements are available online from the Patent Prosecution Highway web pages. The examiner should consider the work of the Office of First Filing/Examination but is not bound to follow the actions of that Office. Any objections under UK patent law should be raised as normal.
[An examiner assistant will determine whether the request for PPH processing is allowable and record this in a note on the timeline for the examiner, consulting the PPH Administration Team where necessary. The examiner assistant will inform the applicant of the allowability of the PPH request. Once the examiner assistant has placed the note on the timeline documenting the PPH request they will update Search, Exam and Publication cases where necessary.
[When starting work on an application which has been accelerated under the PPH, the examiner should refer to the guidance provided in the note on the timeline. If there is no minute but a PPH request has been made, the PPH Administration Team should be contacted immediately by emailing PPH@ipo.gov.uk.]
18.07.2
s.89A is also relevant
A report should issue confirming whether the request is allowable or not (see 18.07 and 18.07.1). If a request for accelerated substantive examination is allowed, the report should state that substantive examination will proceed shortly, but that no report under s.18(4) will normally issue until at least three months after the application has been published under s.16 so as to allow time for third parties to file observations under s.21 and for updating the search (see 18.85 - 3rd square bracket). However, this so-called “3-month rule” does not apply to divisional applications where the invention claimed was clearly claimed in the published parent application, such that parties have already had at least three months to file observations under s.21 in respect of that invention. In this situation, if the only outstanding matter preventing grant of the divisional is the three-month period for s.21 observations, then the examiner should waive this three-month period (see square brackets below 18.07.2) and issue an intention to grant letter. If the invention claimed in the divisional application was clearly claimed in the published parent, but the parent has not been published for at least three months, then the examiner should delay issuing an intention to grant letter until the parent has been published for at least three months. Regardless of whether the invention of the divisional was clearly claimed in the published parent application or not, the issuing of an intention grant letter cannot be delayed beyond the end of the compliance period merely to allow for the expiry of the three-month period. In the situation where less than three months is to elapse between publication of an application and the compliance date, the examiner should delay the issue of an intention to grant letter to allow as much time as possible for s.21 observations to be filed, without delaying beyond the end of the compliance period. This situation most commonly arises when divisional applications are filed very close to the end of the compliance period. Note that the only time where issuing of an intention to grant letter will be delayed beyond the compliance date is where s.16 publication is due to take place after the compliance date. For further information on this and other aspects of handling divisional applications including which report/letter examiners should issue under which circumstance, see the square brackets below 15.41. In the case of s.89 applications, if the corresponding international application has been published by WIPO (see 89B.04), then a report under s.18(4) may not be issued until at least 2 months after the application has been republished so as to allow adequate time for third parties to file observations under s.21 after the application has entered the national phase (National Starch and Chemical Investment Corporation’s Application BL O/34/96). Where the s.89 application has entered the national phase early and accelerated publication under s.16 has occurred (see 89A.20.1), the usual “3-month rule” (from the date published by the IPO) applies. For further details on accelerated examination of s.89 applications, see 89A.21. For accelerated processing under the PCT(UK) Fast Track, 89B.17).
[Where the 3-month rule has been waived (or reduced) in relation to a divisional application, the examiner should clearly record this on the grant form for the benefit of the EA, or alternatively a note should be put on the timeline.]
[ Where there is insufficient time remaining to allow the full 3-month delay after publication for s.21 observations, and so a shorter delay is used, a diary date should be created for reconsideration of the application before the end of the compliance period and, if the delay is more than one month, a modified SE3 or EL32 if a s.18 report has previously been issued, should be issued. The SE3/EL32 should be modified as required, for example: to note that the delay will be less than three months after publication and (if appropriate) to remove any reference to updating the search. ]
18.07.3
Any request for confidentiality relating to accelerated prosecution, for instance where such prosecution has been requested because of alleged infringement, should be considered in the light of the general guidance given in 118.13, but the request itself and the general reason for it should be open to public inspection.
18.08
r.31(5)(a) is also relevant
Substantive examination should be carried out using the main copy of the specification. When substantive examination occurs after s.16 publication, any amendments filed before substantive examination should be incorporated into the specification, and the examination be conducted on the basis of the amended specification (cf 18.63-18.70). The amendments should be incorporated into the description, claims and/or drawings as appropriate, and each of these new documents annotated as “WORKING COPY” or “WC”. For applications undergoing combined search and examination before s.16 publication, the examiner doing the search and examination should consider whether any amendments filed before issue of the search report may be allowed. If they are allowable the search and examination should proceed on the basis of the application as amended (17.35, 19.19.1). Amended or new claims should be included in the published application as normal (16.16-16.19). Applications where the original claims were filed after the filing date should be treated on combined search and examination as outlined in 17.34. If formal drawings were filed later than the application date they may nevertheless be used for the examination, but if a detail of a drawing becomes a point of issue the informal drawings should be consulted since any discrepancies of detail may not have been detected in the preliminary examination (see 15A.22).
[The substantive examiner should, at each action, scan all correspondence from applicants or agents to ensure that all matters raised have been dealt with bearing in mind the substantive examiner’s overall responsibility for the application. If, when proposed new claims are filed, it is not clear which previous claims (if any) have been superseded the agent (or applicant) may be telephoned to ascertain the position before examination is made.
[Amendments allowed before the issue of the search report should be acknowledged at the time of combined search and examination using the appropriate version of SC1.]
18.09
s.1(1), s.14(3) and s.14(5) are also relevant
In particular the substantive examiner must establish whether the application relates to a patentable invention (see ss.1-4), whether the invention is disclosed in a manner which is clear and complete enough to enable it to be performed (see 14.58 14.90), and whether the claims define the invention and are clear (see 14.108 to 14.139), are concise (see 14.140 to 14.141), are supported by the description (see 14.142 to 14.156) and relate to a single invention or inventively-linked group of inventions (see 14.157 to 14.168). The substantive examiner should therefore study the specification to whatever extent is necessary to see whether these requirements have been met.
18.09.1
In Macrossan’s Patent Application [2006] EWHC 705 (Ch), Mann J held that each patent application must be measured against the requirements of the law and on the basis of its own facts; any particular application stands and falls on its own merits. Earlier patents can be used to gain some assistance on a particular case, but to rely on previous patents as some sort of benchmark would be to give the earlier patent in time a primacy which the legislation does not warrant. In deciding whether or not an application complies with the requirements of the Act and Rules, the facts of the case should be decided on the balance of the evidence available.
18.09.2
As Mann J indicated in Macrossan’s Patent Application [2006] EWHC 705 (Ch), any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favour only if the doubt is substantial. This could arise if the examiner’s assertions as to the common general knowledge have been challenged and expert evidence would be needed to establish the position, or if the date of a prior disclosure has been challenged and the examiner does not have access to material that would confirm the date. Certainly the examiner is not required to meet the criminal burden-of-proof standard in raising and pursuing an objection. If the examiner is minded to maintain an objection, but there may be substantial doubt on an issue of fact which would determine patentability, the test applied in Blacklight Power Inc. v The Comptroller-General of Patents [2009] RPC 6 should be used (see 4.05.1). In this case, the judge held that the examiner should consider whether the evidence provided by the applicant gives rise to a reasonable prospect that, if the issue were to be fully investigated at trial with the benefit of expert evidence, it would be resolved in the applicant’s favour. This case concerned industrial applicability and sufficiency where the claimed invention relied on a scientific theory of doubtful validity. However, the test could also apply to other questions of doubt which would be addressed in court by the use of expert evidence. This could include the determination of inventive step where a prima facie objection of obviousness is contested on technical grounds (see 3.67-3.69), and the determination of the publication date of an internet citation (see 18.09.3-18.09.5 below).
18.09.3
When assessing the relevance of an internet disclosure at the substantive examination stage, a document should be cited at first instance unless the examiner is certain that it falls outside the state of the art. If the applicant contests the publication date the examiner should decide the matter on the balance of probabilities based on the evidence available. Such evidence may include a publication date provided on the webpage itself, the cached date from a search engine (which provides a date by which the webpage must have been published), and the “WayBackMachine” on archive.org. Evidence from sources such as archive.org, while not conclusive, may provide justification for an examiner’s view that there is little doubt as to the date of disclosure (see also 17.54).
18.09.4
The standard of proof required for assessing the publication date for internet citations has been considered both in EPO Board of Appeal decisions and in Office decisions. Although the Board of Appeal in T 1134/06 Konami Corp. decided that for an internet disclosure to be cited as prior art, its date of publication would need to be proved “beyond any reasonable doubt”, in HSBC France’s Application BL O/180/09, the hearing officer held that the date of an internet disclosure should be decided on the balance of probabilities. This followed from previous UK case law on prior use (e.g. Kavanagh Balloons Pty Ltd v Cameron Balloons Ltd [2004] RPC 5 – see 2.29.1):
As the EPO’s approach to prior use forms the basis of the Technical Board of Appeal’s decision in T 1134/06, I do not consider that I am bound to follow the EPO’s reasoning in this case. Rather it seems to me more appropriate, in line with UK cases in this general area such as Kavanagh Balloons, that the date and contents of internet disclosures be assessed on the balance of probabilities, just as it is for cases of alleged prior use or, for that matter, dating any other categories of prior disclosure.
18.09.5
In Ranger Services Application BL O/362/09 it was held that a publication date established on archive.org was sufficient to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, a date of publication before the priority date of the application. In addition, EPO guidance issued in 2009 (Official Journal EPO 8/9 2009) states:
…the balance of probabilities will be used as the standard of proof, as generally applied by the boards of appeal. According to this standard, it is not sufficient that the alleged fact (e.g. the publication date) is merely probable; the examining division must be convinced that it is correct. It does mean, however, that proof beyond reasonable doubt (“up to the hilt”) of the alleged fact is not required.
It further notes that the fact that archive.org is not a complete archive does not detract from its credibility and the legal disclaimers contained in the site should not be taken to reflect negatively on the accuracy of the service. This guidance reduces the burden of proof required by the EPO and brings its practice more into line with that of the Office.
18.10
r.113(5)-(6) is also relevant
The substantive examiner should then study the search report, including any document noted but not cited. Although any views expressed by the search examiner, either concerned with novelty or obviousness or with any other subject, should be carefully considered, the substantive examiner is not bound by these views and must make up their own mind as to what objections, if any, should be raised. While the search examiner will have resolved any doubt about the relevance of a document in favour of citing it, the substantive examiner should only cite if the document supports at least a prima facie objection. On the other hand the examiner may decide to cite a document noted by the search examiner but not included in the search report under s.17(5), for example where the documents cited were merely examples selected from a large number found, or any other document which has come to their notice (but see 18.11). Where the examiner has become aware of an apparently relevant document in a foreign language, they should check whether there is an English language equivalent. If not, the substantive examiner should use their judgement regarding the necessity for a text in English, making use of what they can glean from the foreign language document including any drawings and an English language abstract if available. The applicant can be asked informally to provide a copy of the text of the document in English if they have it, but a formal request for a translation should not be made except possibly in the case of a document cited in an international search report, international preliminary report on patentabilty or international preliminary examination report (see 89B.11 and rule 113(5)-(6)). Conversely the examiner may exceptionally provide a copy of a translation of a foreign language document to the applicant but is not obliged to do so (as per 17.104.1).
[If the substantive examiner decides not to cite a category X and/or Y document which had been included in the search report, a note should be added to the timeline to record their decision. Such a note is unnecessary in respect of A category documents included in the search report.
[The substantive examiner should ensure that any newly-cited documents are issued as appropriate (see 17.104.1, 17.105.1).
[If a substantive examiner requires a translation of a foreign language document which they have been unable to obtain by other means, consideration may be given to procuring one. This may be arranged by a Secure Examination Support Officer. This should rarely be necessary and if it is it should be possible to identify key passages for translation instead of the whole document.]
18.10.1
There are often reports and citations associated with equivalent applications. At any stage, when equivalents are found, examiners should use their judgement to decide which of these reports and citations to consider. Online file inspection can be used to find these reports and may provide further details of the significance of a document cited against an equivalent (see 18.10.4).
18.10.2
When first examining a UK application or PCT application, the substantive examiner should identify any equivalent applications and list these on the internal search report (as per 17.115). The claims of EP, WO and GB equivalents should be considered in order to assess whether conflict arises (see 17.115) and (18.91-18.97.1). When there is an EP or WO equivalent, the examiner should also complete a search comparison form.
18.10.3
The composition of a patent family may change over time. Therefore examiners should check if any further equivalents have come to light since the check made at first substantive examination. As a minimum, this check should be made just before issuing an intention to grant letter, but may also be useful when issuing a second (or later) examination report. The examiner should also consider checking the online file, and legal status (eg whether granted or not), of any equivalent applications (see 18.10.4). At this stage it is possible that new documents have been cited against an equivalent, or an equivalent may have been granted with narrower claims. In addition, the first examination report for an equivalent may have become available, if it was not previously. It is often useful to carry out a final check, before grant, of the legal status and online file of any EP and US equivalents.
18.10.4
Reports and citations associated with equivalents, and the legal status of equivalents, can often be found using online file inspection.
[ For EP equivalent applications, the European Patent Register online file inspection facility may provide further details of the significance of a document cited against the equivalent. For US equivalents, the USPTO’s Global Dossier online file inspection facility may be used. Other offices are increasingly introducing online file inspection and online machine translation. Where reports on AU and CA equivalents are considered by the examiner the applicant should be informed that work from either the Australian or Canadian office has been considered. When checking an equivalent granted US patent, the substantive examiner should also consider whether the granted claims have been significantly restricted or clarified in comparison to the claims of the application in suit. Where it appears that the granted claims, if made to the application in suit, would distinguish the invention from the prior art and be prima facie allowable, RC 13 should be used to mention this to the applicant. ]
18.11
Ideally an applicant should not be confronted during substantive examination with a document which could have been included in the search report but was not. Nevertheless the overriding consideration is the validity of an eventual patent, and if such a document demonstrates that the invention claimed is not novel or is obvious it must be cited.
[Whenever a new document is cited, even if only referred to as an example of common general knowledge, it should be included in an internal search report.]
[ Whenever a document which could and should have been cited earlier is cited for the first time in a s.18 report, an apology should be made on behalf of the Office. In general no reason for the oversight should be offered, though if the document was cited against a corresponding application or patent of the same patent family or if it has come to light as a result of reclassification this should be mentioned. In no circumstances should the blame for the mistake be attributed. On the other hand, when citing for the first time a document which was not previously relevant but has become so as a result of amendment of the specification, this fact may be pointed out. If this citation is made as a result of a partial search, and further searching is likely to be necessary, this should also be mentioned. Furthermore, if a citable document is found as a result of updating search to comply with s.2(3) then this should be mentioned in the s.18 report.
[ If the substantive examiner discovers such a citable document and considers it so relevant that the applicant may not proceed with the application, there being nothing to indicate that the applicant must already be aware of the document, they may defer issue of the s.18 report and instead cite the document using SL5, adding the relevant information regarding the document ie category and relevant passages/claims. The optional last paragraph of SL5 should be included if appropriate. This gives the applicant two months in which to withdraw the application before issue of the report. For all cases, the examiner may wish to set an internal diary action for two months after the issue of SL5.
[ The applicant should be provided with a copy of any non-patent literature (NPL) and English language abstracts of foreign language patent documents. Furthermore, a copy of the source document (where appropriate) should be similarly provided for the applicant whenever it is substituted for an abstract at the substantive examination stage. ]
(see also 18.03.1 to 18.03.6 and 18.41)
18.12
Normally no further searching should be necessary, beyond updating the original search (17.115 to 17.117; for s.89 applications, see 89B.12 to 89B.12.3). The search examiner will have set out a statement of the critical matter and indicated in which databases and classification areas the search has been carried out. Even if the substantive examiner is surprised by the fact that few (or no) documents have been listed, they should assume (in the absence of any indication to the contrary) that the report of the search includes all anticipations of the critical matter present in the areas searched, although if they know of a particular relevant document omitted from the report they may cite it. Nor should the search be extended to other databases or classification areas unless there is very good reason for doing so. On the other hand the substantive examiner will have studied the specification more closely than the search examiner and if it transpires that the statement of critical matter was inadequate, or if any of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 17.117 applies, then a further search may be necessary. This could also be the case if classification scheme revision has created a highly relevant place, not available at the search stage and likely to contain documents not covered by the original search, to search for the particular critical matter. If classification symbols have been applied to the family by the European Patent Office or other offices, it will normally be desirable to ensure that the field of search includes at least those symbols which apparently relate to the critical subject matter (as opposed to supplementary material which might also have been classified). Top-up centre will identify all CPC symbols that have been applied to the family by the EPO/USPTO and/or other offices. When the scope of the search has been extended beyond that indicated in the original search report(s) the applicant should be informed, with an indication of the new field(s) searched.
[ Any additional fields of search or citations arising from “top-up” or further searches should be recorded by the substantive examiner in the Search form and on a new internal search report, with any newly-cited documents being issued (as appropriate) together with the examination report (see 17.104.1, 17.105.2). For CSE’s, in the event that further searching is conducted before the application has finished its preparation for A-publication, examiners should ensure that a new external search report (ESR) is created if new documents are cited. This ESR will be included as part of the published A-specification (see also 17.117).
[ Unless action has been taken under ss17(8) and 18(1A), a further request for search and search fee can only be accepted if the search examiner has reported that the application relates to two or more inventions, and then only in respect of claims present in the application at the time of the main search. Following a search report on the first of two inventions identified by the search examiner on an application, the applicant may cancel the searched claims and file a request for substantive examination together with a further request for search in respect of the remaining claims. In such a case the fee paid on the further request for search is not refunded; however, the further search can be carried out in advance of substantive examination. If, in such a case, a further request for search is not filed, it may be requested under ss.17(8) and 18(1A) at the substantive examination stage see 18.03.3. When a search report has been issued in respect of the first invention in a divisional application, despite a report in respect of this invention having already issued in connection with the parent application - see 18.03.3.]
18.13
In situations such as where documents have been cited at the search stage and no amendment has been made or the scope of the claims remains unclear, the substantive examiner should consider whether deferral of any necessary further searching would be the most efficient course of action. If any necessary further search is deferred, the applicant should be informed.
18.14
As a result of the practice referred to in paragraph 17.74 the search report may include documents which may or may not in fact form part of the state of the art, depending on what is the priority date of the invention under examination and/or of the potentially citable matter. Further such documents may be found in the course of updating the search. In addition, if the applicant files a late declaration of priority (see 5.26.1) after search, the search report may resultingly include documents which no longer form part of the state of the art (see 17.82). The examiner should therefore consider whether the documents in the search report still form part of the state of the art. A document cannot be disregarded as a citation simply because the application in suit claims priority from it (see 5.25.2 and 5.26 and 15.22). At examination the practice set out in paragraphs 18.15 to 18.20 should be followed when a potential citation was published on or after the declared priority date or filing date of the application being examined.
[Examiners should be aware that there is no legal requirement for the earliest declared priority date to support the claimed invention. Lack of such support is not grounds on which to raise an objection. The validity of the support provided by the declared priority documents only becomes relevant as provided in 17.115.1 or when it impacts potential citations against novelty or inventive step, as discussed in 15.15 to 15.20. See also 5.15.]
18.15
If the potential citation is a UK patent application, or a European or international application designating the UK, and demonstrates lack of novelty, a prima facie determination of the priority date of the invention under examination (see 5.20-5.25.2) should be performed if possible. Normally only a cursory examination of any priority documents will be necessary. If any priority documents (or verified translations or declarations - see 5.11) have not yet been filed then the matter should provisionally be resolved against the applicant. Similarly, if there is any other doubt about the matter, either because it can be argued that the invention is not supported by the disclosure in the priority document, or because the priority document contains a reference which suggests that it might not be the earliest relevant application (for example if it is a US continuation-in-part or if it contains a reference to an earlier application), then the matter should provisionally be resolved against the applicant. If a prima facie priority date cannot be determined or if the prima facie priority date is later than the earliest declared priority date (or, where there is none, the filing date) of the potential citation, then the latter should be formally cited. No attempt should be made at this stage to establish the priority date of the invention in the citation. If the dates are such that there is a possibility that the applicant may be able to show that the priority date of their invention is not later than that of the cited matter by establishing or arguing for their own declared date and/or by attacking that of the citation, they should be invited to do so; if they do, then the substantive examiner will have to determine any priority date in question. If the applicant amends to remove the objection of lack of novelty, and the citation could be used to demonstrate the absence of an inventive step, the matter should then be considered as in paragraph 18.16.
Because of the provisions of s.78(5A) an application for a European patent (UK) remains citable under s.2(3) even if it, or the designation of the UK in it, is withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn. Under the EPC all European patent applications filed on or after 13 December 2007 designate all Contracting States (including the UK) automatically at the date of filing. Every European patent application will therefore become a European patent (UK) application. Section 78(5A) further provides that removal of the UK designation before publication of the European patent (UK) application does not prevent the matter contained in the European patent (UK) application becoming part of the state of the art by virtue of section 2(3). Every European patent application filed after 13 December 2007 will therefore enter the state of the art by virtue of section 2(3) once published. For European patent applications filed prior to 13 December 2007, removal of the UK designation before publication will continue to prevent the matter contained in those applications from forming part of the state of the art by virtue of section 2(3) once published.
r.9(4) is also relevant
[RC1 should be used for formally making the citation see 18.47. If the dates are such that the applicant may be able to argue that the priority date of their invention is earlier than that of the cited matter, RC1[A] should be added. If there is a possibility that the applicant will be able to show that the priority date of their invention is earlier than that of the cited matter by filing a translation of their priority document (or an equivalent declaration - see 5.11 then RC1C should be added instead.]
18.16
If the potential novelty citation is a document other than a UK patent application or a European or international application designating the UK then it should be formally cited provided that its publication date is earlier than the prima facie priority date (determined as in 18.15 above) of the invention under examination. Similarly, if the citation is a UK patent application or a European or international application designating the UK, but is to be used to argue lack of inventive step but not lack of novelty, then it should also be formally cited provided that its publication date is earlier than the prima facie priority date (determined as in 18.15 above) of the invention under examination. If the applicant in their response asserts that the priority date of their invention is in fact not later than the publication date of the citation the substantive examiner will have to determine the question.
r.9(4) is also relevant
[Formal citation should be made using RC1 or RC3 as appropriate (see 18.47), and the appropriate one of RC1[B] or RC3[A] should be added. If there is a possibility that the applicant will be able to show that the priority date of their invention is earlier than the publication date of the cited matter by filing a translation of their priority document (or an equivalent declaration - see 5.11 then RC1[D] or RC3[B] should be added instead.]
18.17
r.8(1) and (2) 18.17 are also relevant
If, in order to determine the priority date of the invention under examination, the substantive examiner needs to consult a document referred to in the priority document, they should ask the applicant to provide a copy, with a translation if necessary. If it transpires that the document in question is in the office on the file of another application, the examiner should consult that file. If the priority application number and document itself if required (see 5.08 to 5.10) has not been provided and there is still time to do so, confirmation of the priority date must be deferred until the document is provided.
18.18
If it becomes necessary to consult the priority documents of a cited European (UK) application and, exceptionally, it proves impossible to obtain a copy before the end of the compliance period, the applicant should be informed that the examiner does not have immediate access to the priority documents and may have to resume action after grant. Similarly, the applicant should be informed of possible action after grant if a translation of a priority document or declaration needed to establish the priority date of a cited EP(UK) application has not yet been filed (see 73.02).
[Copies of priority documents (other than UK applications) of cited EP (UK) applications and of translations, if any, of the priority documents into one of the three official languages of the EPO can be obtained from the European Patent Register online file inspection service. When the priority date of the EP (UK) application cannot be established in time, and the applicant is so informed at the same time as citation is made, RC1[22] should be used (or RC1[22A] if there are other objections outstanding); if citation has already been made, EL22 should be used. RC1[22A] should also be used when there should be plenty of time left for obtaining copies of the priority documents from the EPO. ]
18.19
When it appears to the substantive examiner that the application under examination should be cited against the potential citation, they should take steps to ensure that the matter is taken into account by the relevant examiner.
18.20
ss.89(1) and 89B(2) r.66(1), (2) are also relevant
An international application can form part of the state of the art by virtue of s.2(3) only if it has fulfilled the conditions for entry into the national phase (see 2.30 and 89B.04) or if s.79(2) is satisfied in the case of an international application treated under the EPC as an application for a European patent (UK) (see 79.03). If at the time the potential citation is under consideration it is not possible to establish whether these conditions have been met, the potential objection should nonetheless be brought to the applicant’s attention. However, no formal objection can be raised until it has entered the national or regional phase designating GB. In the event that no objections remain save that a PCT application would anticipate one or more claims but that it has not yet entered the national or regional phase, the application may proceed to grant and action taken under section 73(1) if and when it does so.
[ The European Patent Register or WIPO Patentscope can be used to determine whether an international application has entered the regional phase. The latest date by which an international application would normally be recorded on the European Patent Register as having entered the national or regional phase is 40 months after the priority date or, if none, the filing date.]
[ If the international application has not entered the national or regional phase at the time of writing the examination report, RC43 should be used to warn the applicant of the potential citation. The examiner should set an internal diary for 34 months (UK designated) or 40 months (EP(UK) designated) from the priority date of the relevant application. When the diary matures, the examiner should identify whether the application is now citable under s.2(3) (having entered the national or regional phase) or that it is not citable (having never entered the national or regional phase). The examiner can then take the appropriate action, which may be after the grant of the patent - see 73.02-73.04. The examiner should add a minute to the timeline recording the outcome.]
18.21
The search report is concerned solely with documentary evidence, though in some cases the substantive examiner may be able to argue (at least in the first instance) that an invention claimed is not novel or is obvious on the basis of common general knowledge which is sufficiently well-known not to need documentary support, either on its own or in combination with any documents cited (see 3.45 and 3.62).
18.22
Common general knowledge can in some cases be regarded as implicit in the disclosure of a cited document, so that while certain essentials of a claim being considered may not be explicitly disclosed in the citation, it may be possible to argue that an earlier invention would, as a matter of normal practice, be performed in a way falling within the scope of the claim under consideration. This would have the effect that the prior document may then be cited on the grounds of lack of novelty rather than in support of an obviousness objection (though it may be advisable to explain the reasoning behind such an objection). It also renders citable such a document which forms part of the state of the art by virtue of s.2(3).
18.23
If it is found that an admitted display of the invention not within s.2(4)(c) has occurred or that in respect of a display falling within s.2(4)(c), no written evidence under r.5(4) and (5) has been filed within the prescribed period (see 2.40), and the matter displayed thus appears to fall within the state of the art as defined in s.2(2), objection should be raised under s.1(1)(a) or (b) as appropriate.
18.24
If the substantive examiner is aware, either from personal experience or from information from another examiner (see 17.54 and 17.91) or from a member of the public (see 21.18-21.19), of an instance of prior use which is apparently destructive of the novelty or inventive step of the invention claimed, all the relevant facts should be communicated to the applicant, provided sufficient circumstantial details of the prior use are available to enable the applicant to make their own independent enquiries. For example it might be reported that an article having particular features was produced by a named manufacturer, under a particular name or identifying reference, or that such an article was purchased by a named person at an identified shop on or about a specified date. If prima facie evidence of prior use is put to the applicant they must respond (Zannetos’s Application, BL O/119/96). A vague or anecdotal allegation of prior use should however not be pursued. (For details of the standard of proof required in cases of alleged prior use, see 2.29.1).
[ If the applicant does not admit prior use and is unwilling to amend it will not normally be possible to pursue the matter. In no circumstances should the substantive examiner offer to make the anticipatory matter (or a drawing or photograph of it) available to the applicant or to third parties, unless provided by a member of the public. This is in order to avoid the involvement of the examiner in their personal, as opposed to their official, capacity in the patent proceedings. Any request or demand that an examiner should give evidence as to prior use, whether orally or by affidavit or statutory declaration, should be referred to the Divisional Director of Secure Patents. ]
18.37
The substantive examiner must consider whether the claims relate to a single invention or group of inventively-linked inventions (see 14.157 to 14.168). They should take into account any views expressed by the search examiner (see 17.106 to 17.110) but are not bound by these and must make up their own mind on the subject; they should hesitate however before raising an objection if the search examiner has considered the question and decided that the claims do have unity of invention.
[The substantive examiner should consider offering an apology on behalf of the Office when raising an objection to plurality of invention if the search examiner decided the same claim represented a single invention.]
18.38
When there is plurality of invention, the substantive examiner should decide which of three courses of action to take at the first action under s.18. The course of action adopted should be that which is likely to be the most efficient in the particular circumstances of the case. Firstly, the examiner may decide to perform the full substantive examination at that stage. If substantive examination is performed an objection to the lack of unity of invention should be incorporated in the report. Secondly, the examiner may decide to defer consideration of claims relating to a second or subsequent invention. If so, the applicant should be informed accordingly. If no search has yet been performed in respect of the second or subsequent invention, the applicant should be reminded of this fact. Thirdly, substantive examination may be deferred entirely and a preliminary report issued under s.18(3) - see 18.39 below.
18.38.1
If the examiner decides to perform substantive examination, an objection to the lack of unity of invention should be incorporated into the report using clause RC6. In line with the guidance set out at 17.108.2 on the content of plurality objections at search stage, plurality objections raised at substantive examination must contain:
a) an introduction to the objection setting out the legal basis for it and identifying the different groups of inventions, including where possible an indication of the claims belonging to each group;
b) the grounds for the objection including identifying the common subject matter between the different groups of inventions or, if appropriate, a statement on the lack thereof;
c) if common subject matter has been identified a comparison with the prior art/common general knowledge which explains why the features identified as common subject matter are known or obvious (N.B. if prior art is relied upon it should be clearly identified). If the claims do not share common subject matter, this should be communicated to the applicant;
d) a concluding statement explaining that a lack of unity has been found.
Standard clause RC6 has been drafted to provide a template in line with these criteria, but examiners should note that it does not contain a concluding statement and they should draft one in their own words appropriate to the application. For the drafting of plurality objections at search stage see 17.108.2.
[ The aim should be to perform the full substantive examination if it is practicable to do so. Consideration of the novelty or obviousness of claims relating to a second or subsequent invention should be deferred if the claims in question have not been searched. However consideration in other respects should be deferred only if the amount of time or the difficulty involved in considering all of the claims is likely to be excessive. ]
[ Objection to plurality of invention should be made formally using RC6 (or RC6PA for private applicants). If however the fault appears to lie merely in unfortunate drafting of the claims, and the specification does not appear to disclose separate inventions, RC6 should not be used and the examiner should instead draft an objection in their own words. ]
[ When using RC6 the reference to division should be omitted if less than three months of the compliance period remains and so the deadline for filing a divisional application under r.19 has passed. RC7PA should be added to RC6PA if division is to be suggested to private applicants. The reference that only the first invention has been searched and considered in the report should be deleted or amended if more than one invention has been searched. ]
18.39
CoP is also relevant
The examiner may consider deferring substantive examination entirely when more than one invention has been searched and it is not clear which invention the applicant is likely to pursue, or when none of the inventions has been searched, or when claims are of an unduly complex nature not meeting the points laid out in the Code of Practice. Where a formal objection arises under s.14(5)(d), a preliminary report should be issued to this effect. This report will be a report under s.18(3) and the compliance date should be set as in s18.47 if the report is issued more than three years and six months after the earliest date of the application. RC16 may also be added to this preliminary report to refer to points in the Code of Practice. The applicant should be informed that further substantive examination is deferred until the application has been amended to meet this objection. Where no formal objection arises under s.14(5)(d), RC16 should be used to refer to points in the Code of Practice. As discussed further in 18.49, the period specified for response under s.18(3) should normally be two or four months, unless the substantive examination has been combined with the search, then the period for response should be set to expire two years after the priority date, or if none, the filing date. Where accelerated examination has been conducted, the response period used at combined search and examination should be set if this expires later than the normal period. The period specified for the next report under s.18(3) should be two months or set to expire two years after the priority date, or if none, the filing date, if this is later for combined search and examination applications. Except for applications where the “3 month rule” can be waived (see 18.07.2), no s.18(4) report should be made until 3 months after s.16 publication.
[ Deferred examination should arise only if consideration of all of the claims would involve an inordinate amount of work. If the application is in order as a result of amendment in response to a preliminary report of plurality of invention, EL3 should not be issued, since the preliminary report constitutes a report under s.18(3). (See also 18.47).
[[ If the claims are amended in response to a plurality objection so that they no longer relate to plural inventions, objections are outstanding and no divisional application has been filed, clause RC26 may be inserted into the subsequent s.18(3) report. It is irrelevant whether the applicant has foreshadowed a divisional application or not, see see 15.46.]
18.40
For a combined search and examination application, in the situation where it would be possible to perform the search but the examination is to be deferred for the reasons set out above, then both the search and examination should be deferred.
[The procedure set out in 17.94.10 should be followed, with a suitably modified version of SE2 (SE2PA) being issued to the applicant.]
18.41
(r.27(3)-(6) is also relevant)
A further request for a search, if made on paper using a further Patents Form 9 (or Form 9A see 17.02) and search fee can only be accepted if the search examiner has reported that the application relates to two or more inventions, and then only in respect of claims present in the application at the time of the main search (see 17.111). If plurality is first reported in a report under s.18(3), issued after the search report under s.17, a further request for a search and search fee should not be accepted even if the claims now sought to be searched were in the application as filed; at this stage the applicant should be asked to amend to overcome the objection. However, a further request for a search and search fee can be accepted when the search and examination are combined and it is made clear in the substantive examination report, issuing with the search report, that plurality is notified under s.17 (17.108). In such a situation, if a response to the examination report has been received then the examiner should conduct a re-examination taking into account the results of the further search. If no response to the examination report has been received then it is open to the examiner to decide whether it would be most efficient to conduct a re-examination in light of the further search results, or to await a response to the outstanding examination report. Re-examination at the time of conducting the further search may be particularly appropriate if the compliance date is close. If the search examiner has reported plurality of invention and the applicant has filed one or more further requests for a search, but the substantive examiner decides not to raise, or, having raised, decides to withdraw, a plurality objection in respect of claims which the search examiner has indicated related to more than one invention, a request for a refund of the fee paid on the further request(s) should be acceded to. Such a refund is made as a matter of discretion and not as a rectification of an irregularity under r.107; it should not be given where withdrawal of the objection is due to amendment of the claims. If, on the other hand, amendment to remove plurality of invention involves deletion of claims to an invention which was searched at the search stage in favour of an invention present at that stage but not searched, a search fee under s.17(8) should be required if a further search is needed at substantive examination, see 18.03.3. See also 18.12.
18.42
r.12 are relevant
The specification should commence with a short and appropriate title and should continue with the description (including a list of any drawings) and the claims, in that order (see 14.48 to 14.51). The substantive examiner should also consider whether those requirements of r.14 and Schedule 2 which are not designated as formal requirements (see 14.54, 14.57) have been complied with. Beyond that, the form of the specification is a matter for the applicant, provided that s.14(3) and (5) are complied with.
[Examiners should only object to the title of the invention in the case where the title does not indicate the matter to which the invention relates. For example where the title relates to entirely different matter. RC10 may be used to object to an inappropriate title. ]
18.43
Objection should only be raised under s.14(5)(a), (b) or (c) if the claims contain obscurities or ambiguities or are not clearly consistent with the description and this causes genuine difficulty in determining the scope of the claims. Attention should be focused principally upon the main claim(s). The extent to which appendant claims are scrutinised at substantive examination is a matter for the substantive examiner’s judgement; however the following principles are given for guidance:
(a) If a main claim appears to define an allowable invention all that is generally required with regard to its appendant claims is to check that they are supported by the description (particularly where they were filed later than the application - see 14.145). Objection to clarity in the appendant claims should only be raised when the issue casts genuine doubt on the scope of the main claim or misleads the skilled person who is trying to understand the invention as defined in the main claim. Minor matters which would not lead a skilled reader to misconstrue a claim should not be raised.
These include typographical errors, numbered clauses at the end of the description, lack of antecedence and dependency numbering errors.
(b) When objection is to be raised to the main claim on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, excluded matter, clarity, support etc. and
(i) the substantive examiner can conclude, after considering the search report (and any other prior art known to them), that a novelty, inventive step, excluded matter, clarity, support etc. objection also arises in respect of some or all of the appendant claims, they should report accordingly;
(ii) the substantive examiner readily identifies an appendant claim on which they have found no objection on this account, they should include the fact, explicitly or by implication, in their report, without committing the Office for the future since there may be pertinent prior art not known to the examiner;
(iii) it is not clear to the substantive examiner what amendment of the main claim is likely to be made to meet the objection, examination of some or all of the appendant claims (and any further searching) may be deferred.
(c) The applicant should always be able to deduce from the substantive examiner’s report which claims have been considered by the examiner and with what result, and of which claims consideration has been deferred.
It should be remembered that an omnibus claim may be an independent claim and must be considered separately (see 14.124 to 14.125).
[Time should not be wasted on detailed checking of appendant claims; for example, the effect of complex appendancies does not need to be established. A cursory inspection of claims filed originally with the application will often suffice if the main claims are acceptable.]
18.43.1
CoP is also relevant
In instances where the claims do not meet the points laid out in the Code of Practice, the substantive examiner may consider deferring full substantive examination. Where a formal objection arises, a preliminary report under s.18(3) should be issued objecting under s.14(5)(a), (b) or (c). RC16 may also be added to this preliminary report to refer to points in the Code of Practice. The applicant should be informed that further substantive examination is deferred until the application has been amended, and/or comments have been made by the applicant, to meet the objections raised. The procedure is otherwise as in 18.39.
18.44
s.76(2) is also relevant
Objection should be raised to any obscurities which hinder the understanding of the invention or cast genuine doubt upon the scope of the claims. Objection should be made under s.14(5) in preference to s.14(3) where this is possible (see 14.102-14.105 and 14.144. Where appropriate a warning should be added that any amendment to meet the objection must not add subject-matter. Minor matters which would not lead a skilled reader to misconstrue a document or which would not be pursued if no amendment were forthcoming should not be raised.
(For references in the specification to other documents, see 14.93 to 14.96; to prior art, see 14.91 to 14.92; to Trade Marks, see 14.97-14.101, 14.137.
[No more of the description should be read in detail than is necessary, for example to establish sufficiency and support for the claims. Objection should not be made to consistory clauses merely because they are not in literal agreement with the main claims. If the examiner considers it helpful to suggest what form of amendment would be regarded as satisfactorily meeting an Official objection, they should think carefully about the suggestion before making it. Examples of minor matters which should not be raised are inconsequential incorrect or missing reference numerals or leading lines, missing words, repeated phrases, and spelling errors numbered clauses at the end of the description, lack of antecedence and dependency numbering errors.]
s.76(2) s.14(5)(c) and s.76(2) are also relevant
18.45
Objection must be raised if amendments to the specification result in the application disclosing matter which extends beyond that disclosed in the application as filed (see 76.03 to 76.23), or if amended claims are not supported by the description as filed (see 14.142-14.156). Original claims filed after the date of filing the application should be treated in this latter way (see 14.145); in either case a warning should be given against adding subject-matter to the description.
[Added matter introduced by amendments submitted before, or in response to, the substantive examiner’s first report may be objected to using RC9.]
18.46
As far as substantive examination is concerned, the claim to priority should not be questioned unless it becomes necessary to do so in considering the viability of a potential citation (see 18.14 to 18.16).
| Section 18(3) |
| If the examiner reports that any of those requirements are not complied with, the comptroller shall give the applicant an opportunity within a specified period to make observations on the report and to amend the application so as to comply with those requirements (subject, however, to section 76 below), and if the applicant fails to satisfy the comptroller that those requirements are complied with, or to amend the application so as to comply with them, the comptroller may refuse the application. |
18.47
If it is found, either at the first substantive examination or following subsequent amendment, that there are objections outstanding, the examiner’s report to the comptroller is issued to the applicant and should specify the period within which a response should be made. The report should usually deal first with fundamental matters such as patentability (other than questions of novelty or obviousness) and unity of invention (see 18.37 to 18.40), if they arise, then raise formally any objections based on lack of novelty or inventive step (see 3.48 to 3.71), and thereafter deal with lack of clarity and inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the claims and description in order of importance (see 18.42-18.45). The aim should be to present the objections in a logical order. The report should also include any report from the formalities examiner (see 18.04). The specification is not returned to the applicant with the report.
[ Unless the search and examination have been combined or an abbreviated examination report (see 18.47.1) is issued, the first report under s.18(3) should be issued with letter EL1. If the report is issued 3½ years or more after the earliest date of the application, the letter should normally specify a period for reply of two months. For reports issued less than 3½ years after the earliest date, the letter should normally specify a reply period of four months (see 18.49). Subsequent s.18(3) reports should be issued with EL2, specifying a period of two months or less for reply (see 18.49) and making reference to the date of the agent’s letter replying to the previous report. For combined search and examination, the report should issue with SE1 or SE4. Furthermore, if the examination letter is issued within three months of the end of the unextended compliance period, ELC1 should be added. If it is issued in the two months extension obtained by requesting to extend the compliance date deadline online through the One IPO patents service, or on paper filing Form 52, ELC2 should be added. If it is issued within two months after the end of the compliance period so that a request to extend the deadline filing of Form 52 is necessary, add ELC3. If the examination letter is issued after the end of the extended compliance period letter EL5 should issue (see also 20.06).]
R.30(2) is also relevant
When the first report (or in the case of a divisional application, the first report on the earliest ‘parent’ application) is issued later than three years and six months from the earliest date, then ELC4 (or ELC5 for the divisional) should be added to EL1. This reminds the applicant that the unextended period for getting the application in order will expire twelve months from the date of issue of the first report (or, in the case of a divisional application, twelve months from the date of issue of the first report on the earliest ‘parent’ application). If ELC4 was omitted from a first examination letter issued later than three years and six months from the earliest date, then the applicant or agent should be informed of the correct compliance date at the earliest possible opportunity. The examiner should check that the compliance date has been set correctly in One IPO, noting that the r.30(2)(b) period is automatically set on closure of the examination case. If this mistake becomes apparent at the second examination, then a clause should be added to the EL2 letter to inform the applicant that the normal unextended period allowed for complying fully with the requirements of the Act will end 12 months after the date that the first substantive examination report was sent. For ‘great grandchild’ divisional applications, the examiner should arrange for the compliance period to be manually set. ]
[ Whenever the specification includes amendments not previously reported on, RC8 or SC1, as and when appropriate (see 18.08), should usually be the first item in the report, indicating the date of the letter which accompanied the amendments. When documents are formally cited in support of an objection of lack of novelty or inventive step, RC1 or RC3 should be used (or RC5 if the claims are obscure), with RC1[A], RC1[B], RC1[C], RC1[D], RC3[A] or RC3[B] added if appropriate (see 18.15 to 18.16).]
[ Documents cited or otherwise referred to in a s.18(3) report should be itemised by number etc, and passages considered to be relevant by the substantive examiner should also be identified, so that the report is complete without recourse to the search report under s.17. References to published or reported judgments and decisions should fully and clearly identify the report etc in question in the normal way, such as in the Table of Cases of this Manual.]
[ The examiner should produce the examination (covering) letter and the s.18(3) report using numbered paragraphs and descriptive sub-headings as appropriate. Examination letter clauses should be inserted in the examination letter after the paragraph relating to the need to file amendments or make observations on the report.]
[ The examination report should not refer (except in certain limited cases relating to divisional applications) to objections which might arise if a presently unpublished application by the same applicant (or otherwise) that the examiner may be aware of were to be published. In these circumstances the examiner should add a note to the timeline and raise the objection if and when the other application is published. See 118.16.]
[ After preparation of the s.18(3) report and examination (covering) letter, the substantive examiner should inform their revising officer where appropriate. ]
[ When a substantive examiner intends to issue a preliminary report (see 18.39, 18.43.1, and 18.48), they should obtain approval from their Group Head.]
[ When, during substantive examination, a letter is to issue which does not embody a report under s.18 (eg an answer to an agent’s enquiry, or the offer of a hearing), the substantive examiner should ensure that the letter is headed “Patents Act 1977”, the application number is identified and, if appropriate, the latest date for reply is specified.]
18.47.1
If an examination opinion identifying major defects (see 17.83.3) has been issued at search stage and no response has been filed, the first report under s.18(3) should take the form of an abbreviated examination report (AER) which essentially reproduces the examination opinion. For international applications entering the national phase where the International Search Report or International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP) indicate that major amendment is required, if the examiner is in agreement, an AER based upon information in these reports should be issued when national phase examination takes place (see 89B.15.1. Where an AER is issued, the top-up search should be deferred (if required – see 89B.12.1) until the application has been amended.
[Letters EL1A or EL1B should be used to accompany an abbreviated examination report (AER), while letter EL1C itself acts as an AER. The reply period is usually two months for EL1A (AER issued following no response to an examination opinion), and four months for EL1B (AER issued for PCT applications without an international preliminary report) and EL1C (AER based upon an international preliminary report on patentability). A shorter reply period for EL1B and EL1C may be specified by the examiner if this is considered more appropriate. Where the EL1C letter is issued more than 3 years and 6 months from priority, the reply period should be two months. The AER should use clauses selected from EC1 to EC8. If an AER based on an examination opinion or an International Preliminary Examination Report is issued more than 3 years and 6 months from the priority or filing date, ELC4 should be added to the EL1A or EL1C letter to inform the applicant of the compliance period.]
18.47.2
For applications that qualify for combined search and examination but for which search would not serve a useful purpose (see 17.94-17.101), an abbreviated examination report should be issued. This combined report under s.17(5)(b) and s.18(3) should inform the applicant of the reasons why the application has not been searched. Once the report is issued there will be no refund of the search or examination fee, therefore consideration should be given as to whether action before combined search and examination or action under s.17(5)(b) is most appropriate (see 17.94.5).
[Letter SE2 should accompany the AER. The period specified for reply should be set to expire two years after the priority date, or if there is none, the filing date. The heading of the AER should be edited to read “Combined Search Report under Section 17(5)(b) and Abbreviated Examination Report under Section 18(3)”.]
18.48
Occasionally the substantive examiner may decide that the specification is so obscure that useful examination is impossible. In such a case, they should report to this effect under s.18(3), stating briefly the nature and extent of the obscurity and saying that further examination is deferred pending amendment. In such a case the period specified for reply should be four months or for combined search and examination cases set to expire two years after the priority date, or if there is none, the filing date (see 18.49 below).
18.49
Under s.18(3) the comptroller has power to refuse an application where the applicant fails to file a satisfactory response to an official report within the period specified therein. This period is set at the examiner’s discretion, but there are certain standard periods which should normally be set unless the circumstances dictate otherwise. For first examination reports (other than combined search and examinations or applicable accelerated examinations, as further discussed below) issued less than 3½ years after the earliest date of the application, the standard period for response is four months from issue of the examination report. Where the first examination report is issued 3½ years or more after the earliest date of the application, the standard period for response is two months from the date of issue of the examination report. The reason for this shorter period for response is that in these cases the applicant has only 12 months to get the application in order, and so a longer response period is likely to lead to a very compressed timetable in subsequent actions, particularly as such periods are extendible as-of-right by 2 months – see 18.53. These norms of four months and two months are not rigid ones, and longer or shorter periods may be set if the circumstances warrant it; for example, first examinations issued very close to 3½ years after the earliest date also clearly give rise to the same risk of problems with a compressed timetable for getting the case in order.
Second or subsequent examination reports have a standard response period of two months, although again this should be altered if the circumstances require it. Thus the period of two months could be increased to three months if a major objection was inadvertently not previously raised, or if a document is cited for the first time. Alternatively a shorter period may be set if only minor objections are made in a second or later examination report. It is imperative that the remaining compliance period is considered when setting response periods for further examination reports. When the unexpired portion of the normal compliance period is less than twice the appropriate s.18(3) period, only one half of the remaining time should be specified rounded down to the nearest month or, when less than six weeks remain, down to the nearest week. In this latter case the period should be specified in weeks and not in fractions of a month. When less than six weeks remain, the substantive examiner should use their discretion.
For combined search and examination cases (other than divisional applications – see 15.46) the period for response to a first report under s.18(3) should be set to expire two years after the priority date, or if none, the filing date. Where accelerated examination has been conducted, the response period used at combined search and examination should be set if this expires later than the standard period. The periods set for response to any further reports under s.18(3) should normally be two months (following the approach described above), unless any such period would expire before the date previously set for reply to the first report. In that case the period once again should be set to expire two years from the priority date, or if none, the filing date. It is possible for a late declaration of priority to be made (see 5.26) after a combined search and examination report has issued, in which case the examiner should reissue the report under s.18(3) bearing a reply-by date calculated from the newly declared priority date. The relevance of citations should not be re-assessed at this point but will need to be considered when a response to the report is received. Where s.21 observations are filed near to the end of the compliance period, that period may be extended as described in 20.02.1 and, if so, the report should inform the applicant of the extension and the period for response should be set accordingly.
18.50
Occasionally a further report under s.18(3) may be issued raising additional points before a reply to an earlier report is received. This may happen if an agent’s letter crosses with the report or if a further citation is found. When this occurs the applicant should not only be informed of the period for reply to the further report but also be reminded of the period for reply to the earlier report. When the two reports are on the same or related matters it is preferable that the two periods should be arranged to expire at the same time. Thus, if there is sufficient of the period already specified remaining, the period for reply to the further report may be set to expire at the end of the period already specified for the earlier report. Alternatively, in appropriate cases, the first period may be extended to the end of the period specified for the further action, in which case the examiner should ensure that the diary date set for the applicant to respond to the earlier report in One IPO is updated accordingly. This allows the applicant to respond to both examination reports using the same diary action. The applicant should be informed of this in the letter accompanying the new examination report. Only exceptionally should the period specified in respect of the further action expire before the end of the period specified for the earlier action.
18.51
[Deleted]
18.52
CoP is also relevant
Although s.18(3) gives the comptroller the power to refuse the application if they are not satisfied that any objections have been overcome, this power will not be exercised where the applicant has made, within the specified period, an attempt to advance the case towards a final decision as to its allowability; this attempt can be argument, amendment, a request for hearing or a request for interview. Merely filing requests for further searches under s.17(6) does not address objections raised under s.18, and therefore is not an attempt to advance the case. Similarly where a report under s.18(3) is accompanied by the offer of a hearing, a response which merely declines the offer is not an attempt to advance the case (see also 18.80.1). Normally a proposal to amend the claims only (leaving consequential amendment of the description and drawings to be done when the claims are settled) would be regarded as such an attempt. A request to defer amendment of the description until the independent claims have been agreed upon should therefore be considered favourably. If however the response to the examination report is such that it cannot be regarded as such an attempt the applicant should be warned in writing that refusal is contemplated unless the outstanding matters are addressed within two months of the expiry of the period for reply originally specified (or the compliance date if that is sooner). If this fails to elicit a satisfactory response, they should be formally advised that it is proposed to refuse the application as provided by s.18(3), but that before this is done they will be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter, and a hearing may be appointed (see 18.79-18.80 for the relevant guidance). If no reply is received to the offer of a hearing the application may be allowed to lapse at the compliance date (see 18.79 and 20.03 for further details).
18.52.1
If a third party requests in writing that an application be refused because the applicant has failed to file a satisfactory response to an official report within the period specified therein (taking into account all possible extensions of time), the applicant should be advised that since they have failed to respond within the period for response the comptroller proposes to refuse the application. The third party’s letter should also be drawn to the applicant’s attention. A final decision to refuse an application should be made with regard to all the facts of the case, and the applicant should therefore be offered the opportunity to provide reasons for their lack of response and/or request a Hearing. See procedure in 18.54.
18.52.2
If, however, an enquiry is received from a third party, merely asking whether the application will be refused, the comptroller should respond to the third party to inform them of the compliance date of the application in question and that our normal practice would be to treat the application as refused at the compliance date if no response has been received from the applicant.
18.53
r.109(2), s.117B(3), r.109(1), s.117B(4) and s.123(3A) are also relevant
An automatic extension of two months (or to the end of the compliance period, as prescribed by rule 30 for the purposes of section 20, if this expires sooner) to the period set in an official report can be obtained by requesting it in writing (see also 18.53.1). The request must be received before the end of the period as extended. Only one extension of this type is available. Further extensions may be available at the examiner’s discretion if an automatic two month extension has already been granted. Any request for a further extension must comprise an adequate reason (see 18.56-18.57.1) and be made before the end of the period as already extended. Under Rule 109 of the Patents Rules 2007, there is no longer a requirement for a request for a further extension under s.117B(4)(b) to be made in writing. However this may be required if the examiner feels that a written request is appropriate in the circumstances. A discretionary extension of one month (in addition to the automatic two months) may be granted readily however any longer or further extensions should be accompanied by a very good reason. Evidence to substantiate any reason given can always be requested if considered necessary (see also 123.36.8 and 123.37).
[ A request for a further extension is referred to the substantive examiner, who should not hesitate to consult their Group Head. In reaching a decision whether or not to exercise discretion to extend the period, each case should be considered on its own merits and the contents of 18.54-18.57.1 should be regarded as guidelines rather than rigid rules. The request should normally be answered by telephone or by email and a note (or the telephone report or email) added to the timeline. A concise report of the telephone conversation should always be issued to the applicant and made available for public inspection. A report of an email correspondence need not be issued unless specifically requested or if it is necessary to clarify the reasons for refusing an extension, but a record of the email exchange should be made available for public inspect. The report should clearly state the extension allowed or the reason(s) for refusal which should be carefully worded bearing in mind the possibility of appeal against a decision to refuse. If the report is necessarily lengthy it is preferable to issue a letter instead of a telephone or email report. In all cases, the reason for the request should be open to public inspection, eg in the applicant’s or agent’s letter or s.18 report or telephone or email report. When, after a period for reply under s.18(3) has been specified, the criteria used for determining the period are changed (for example the compliance period is extended or one of the norms set out in paragraph 18.49 is altered) such that if the new criteria has been applied a longer period would have been specified, a request by the applicant for an extension of time to make the specified period up to the longer period should be allowed.]
18.53.1
Requests for extensions of time may be submitted by selecting “request to extend a deadline” under the “manage application” options using the One IPO customer account. Requests to extend a deadline may also be made by email and the Comptroller has directed that such requests be made to the email address pateot@ipo.gov.uk. The Office does not guarantee to recognise requests sent to any other email address.
[All requests sent to the ‘pateot’ email address will receive an automated acknowledgment confirming receipt: requests for an automatic extension will receive no further response because the act of validly requesting the extension is all that is necessary for it to be obtained; when a request for a discretionary extension is received, the formalities examiner will add a note to the timeline for the substantive examiner’s consideration. Email requests will be noted and imported into the dossier by the formalities examiner. They will also check to see if the request has been made on time and that it appears to come from the applicant or appointed agent. If a request is made out of time or apparently not by the applicant or their representative then the procedure of the following paragraph should be followed.]
18.54
s.101 and s.20A is relevant
When a reply is received after the expiry of the specified period and the automatic extension period of two months has passed, the reason, if not already given, should be asked for. If no reason is forthcoming the late response cannot be accepted and a report under s.18(3) should issue informing the applicant that the application will be refused unless observations are forthcoming, or a hearing is requested. Where a reason is provided, the examiner may exercise discretion under s.18(3) to accept the late response, even though no extension to the specified period can be granted. Discretion should be exercised favourably, particularly if; i) the extension period has not been exceeded by more than a de minimis period, and/or, ii) the examiner is satisfied that the failure to respond was unintentional at the time that the specified period expired. Point ii) is consistent with the statutory test that applies to requests for reinstatement under s.20A (see 20A.13 to 16) for guidance on the meaning of unintentional). However, there is no statutory requirement that the failure to respond must have been unintentional in order for the late response to be accepted, and thus the discretion accorded by s.18(3) may be exercised in appropriate circumstances even if this criterion is not met.
18.54.1
After considering the matter (see 18.56-18.57.1) the substantive examiner should report either that the application should be allowed to proceed or that the application should be refused for non-compliance with s.18(3) within the specified period. If the substantive examiner is minded to refuse the application, the applicant should be forthwith informed of the fact and told that, if they wish, an opportunity will be given to hear them in the matter. A month should be given for reply. If no reply is received the application will be treated as refused under s.18(3) at the end of the compliance period. Where however the applicant asks to be heard, a Hearing Officer will take the hearing and may decide either to refuse the application or to allow it to proceed subject to such conditions as they think fit. Where an application is refused, and a hearing has taken place, the applicant should be notified in a formal written decision signed by the Hearing Officer acting for the comptroller.
[When a reply is received outside the automatic two month extension period and no request for extension is received, the formalities examiner should add a note to the timeline for consideration by the substantive examiner, who should if necessary consult their group head. In the interests of uniform practice, consultation with the Divisional Director should be freely resorted to. ]
18.55
It should be borne in mind that the periods normally specified for response to the first s.18(3) report were determined having regard to all normal conditions, including the availability of an automatic two-month extension. While every case must be decided on its merits, the decision in Jaskowski’s Application, [1981] RPC 197, furnishes some guidance in this matter. In that case the applicant’s agent sought an extension on the grounds that delays were inevitably caused by the need to consult US Patent Attorneys who in turn had to seek instructions from the applicant. The hearing officer, in refusing the request, stated “s.18(3) clearly gives the comptroller discretion to extend the specified period but unless a coach and horses is to be driven through the subsection they must have some adequate reason for exercising that discretion which is peculiar to the particular applicant or application in suit. I can see nothing abnormal in the chain of communications in this case… which could be regarded as an adequate reason for extending the specified period”.
18.56
r.109(2) is also relevant
It follows that factors which may be considered normal in relation to all or particular categories of application, eg, the distance of applicant’s location from the UK, the complexity of the subject matter of the application or objections thereto, absence on business or holiday, and a preference of the applicant to defer response until reports of parallel applications abroad have been received do not constitute good grounds for an extension of the specified period; on the other hand, extreme complexity or remoteness, such incidents as illness of or serious accident to applicant or agent, also fire and explosion, wars, revolutions, etc, and natural calamities, which destroy documents or dislocate normal operations, may do so. Further, when it is necessary for the applicant to adduce technical evidence an extension may be allowed in appropriate cases. In McDonald’s Application (BL O/71/96), after expiry of the normal period for putting the application in order, the agent requested allowance of a late response to a first s.18(3) report on the grounds that the applicant had been awaiting the results of searches and examinations on corresponding applications filed elsewhere, that they (the agent) was unfamiliar with examination procedures before the Office and that there had been delays because of overseas travel and family illness. In refusing the request the hearing officer noted that family illness might provide an adequate reason but took no account of it because this difficulty arose well outside the period set for response and none of the other reasons put forward for the delay up to that point were sufficient. Extensions of time to await the issue of reports on corresponding applications were also refused in Smart Card Solutions’ Applications [2004] RPC 12. In this case, the hearing officer did not consider that the potential cost savings to the applicant as a small business in avoiding separate responses to the UK and PCT applications by deferring response until issue of the International Search Report an adequate reason for extension as this was not peculiar to the applicant. The hearing officer also pointed out that the public interest should be protected “by ensuring that any uncertainty involving a patent application is resolved as quickly as possible” by not allowing the examination process to be drawn out without good reason for the delay. A particular category of adequate reason is that the applicant is a German firm which has the inventor as an employee and which does not wish to proceed with the application but by German law is obliged to give the employee the opportunity of proceeding with the application on their own behalf, within a mandatory period before terminating the application. A further, but restricted, category of adequate reason is that where an applicant requests an extension of a specified period (possibly of several months) to carry beyond the date of expiry of the nine months opposition period running in respect of a granted European Patent (UK) equivalent and has indicated that they will not proceed with the UK application if no opposition to the European Patent (UK) equivalent is entered. Provided that sufficient of the compliance period would still remain in order to deal with any objections outstanding on the UK application if it should have to proceed, the request may be allowed to avoid an unnecessary waste of Office and the applicant’s time. So far as delays in (or failures of) communication services are concerned, some protection to applicants may be afforded by r.111, under which ad hoc interruptions and dislocations to a communication service by which documents may be sent and delivered (including the postal service, electronic communications, and courier services) may justify an extension to a period of time specified in the Act or Rules.
[Where correspondence from the Office is reported as never having arrived at its intended destination, or is reported as being misdirected or delayed, this fact should be recorded by adding a note on the Timeline with any relevant details and notifying the relevant formalities group. Use of r.111 to extend a deadline may only be authorised by the relevant Secure Examination Support Manager (see 123.47.1).]
18.56.1
While decisions made in relation to discretionary extensions of the compliance period under r.108 (see 20.02) are legally distinct from discretionary extensions to the specified period for response, the reasoning in such decisions may nonetheless be relevant, as noted in BL O/610/22.
18.57
In Jaskowski’s Application, (see 18.55) the agent was seeking an extension without having received instructions from the applicant. The hearing officer indicated that it is the applicant’s responsibility to respond to the examiner’s report. However a failure on the part of the agent to respond within the specified period may be an adequate reason if the failure was due to an exceptional factor as exemplified in paragraph 18.56. It may also be an adequate reason if it is established on the evidence filed that the failure to take appropriate action was due to the fault of the agent.
18.57.1
It is however recognised that even a well-organised system will break down occasionally. An isolated slip in office procedure by the applicant, their agent or their servants may be a good ground as would unusual congestion of urgent work. Account may also be taken of temporary difficulties, such as financial problems faced by an applicant, with a view to avoiding early refusal of an application against the longer term best interests of the applicant. Nevertheless, further extensions of time beyond the automatic two months available (see 18.53) should be the exception rather than the rule. Consequently, the following should be taken as a guideline:
(a) A reason should always be required, but a single further extension of up to a month will generally be given even if the reason is not one of the sort which would be acceptable according to 18.56 above.
(b) Additional requests for extensions of time (whether at the same action or a later one) require a very strong reason and should normally be no longer than a week or the minimum required to overcome the problem encountered.
(c) Extensions of time should be refused or require evidence where an agent or applicant consistently requests extensions to the period for response without good reason being given.
18.58
The length of further extensions in addition to the automatic two month extension is in many cases indicated by the reason for making the request; otherwise a month’s extension is generally appropriate for a further extension. The substantive examiner should, of course, always take into account how much of the compliance period remains.
18.59
s.101 and s.20(1) is also relevant
If a request for an extension is refused, the applicant may request a hearing. If the hearing officer refuses to allow the extension and the specified period has expired the application will be refused under s.18(3). If the period has not expired at the time of the hearing, or if no hearing is requested, no action should be taken until a response to the outstanding objections is received (see 18.53). If no response is received before the compliance date the application will be treated as having been refused (see 20.03) unless both an extension of the compliance period under r.108(2) or (3) and (4) to (7) (see 123.34- 41) and an extension of the s.18(3) reply period are sought and granted
[ Where extension of the compliance period is sought under r.108(3), the Hearing Officer should decide that question (see 4th paragraph of 20.02) together with the request for extension of the s.18(3) reply period. The Hearing Officer should feel free to consult the Registered Rights Legal Team about the decision under r.108(3). ]
18.60
In order that applicants who simply respond outside the automatic two month extended period should not have an advantage over those who request an extension of time before the end of the extended period, it is essential that the question of an extension should be treated as distinct from that of the content of the response and should be settled before any amendments and/or observations submitted are considered.
Amendments
18.61
CoP is also relevant
Normally the applicant or agent responds to a report under s.18(3) by filing amendments, and/or observations. Amendments may be filed in electronic form if they are submitted via the One IPO patents service. Documents delivered via the One IPO patents service must comply with the Directions for the use of the One IPO Digital Services. Office policy is that amended pages should not be accepted by email. While it is possible under section 124A(3) to exercise discretion to accept documents submitted by email, this should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and should not be encouraged. The amendments should be submitted as complete amended documents. It is helpful if a further copy of the amended pages is provided indicating the changes made either in manuscript on the original pages or using standard word-processing features since this aids identification by the examiner of the changes and where support is provided for them in the description. Minor amendments to drawings, e.g. the insertion of a reference numeral, which can be regarded as de minimis may be effected by the substantive examiner if requested in a letter and in accordance with 14.28 and 14.40-45. Amendments may also be submitted informally, with a view to filing retyped pages when the allowability of the amendments has been confirmed; this practice should not normally be continued in subsequent actions. When no other matters are outstanding and the substantive examiner asks for new pages to be filed, one month should be specified for reply (unexpired compliance period permitting).
[ Amended or new claims received before the preparations for publication are completed are included in the published application (16.16 to 16.19, 19.15 to 19.16). To ensure that the application as filed is published, any amendments of the description, drawings or claims should be annotated appropriately in All Right Documents. The substantive examiner should not enter amendments on the original specification before s.16 publication. The examiner may make manuscript amendments once the application has been published.]
[Amendments containing personal information should only be published or placed on One IPO Search with the explicit, written consent of the applicant. Extra checks should be conducted before A and B publication to ensure consent has not been rescinded. The Formalities examiner is responsible for ensuring these checks are completed and should liaise with Publishing and the Patent Examiner as necessary. If the amendments contain sensitive personal information which the applicant subsequently removes through filing further amendments, the original pages should not be placed on One IPO Search or made OPI, they should be redacted and deleted as necessary by the Formalities examiner.]
[ When retyped pages are filed solely to meet the requirements of r.14 and Schedule 2, either at the first response or following deferment permitted by the substantive examiner, they should be checked by the formalities examiner for textual consistency with the pages they replace. If the formalities examiner is in doubt as to the authentic text against which to check they should refer the file to the substantive examiner who should either identify the correct text or, if they prefer, carry out the necessary check themselves. The formalities examiner will not check the text of the replacement pages when they incorporate amendments which have not previously been written into the specification, or when they have been filed in response to a report containing substantive as well as r.14 objections; in these cases it will be necessary for the substantive examiner to determine whether or not there is added matter or errors.]
[The substantive examiner should decide whether any discrepancies noted during checking, either by themselves or the formalities examiner, are such as to require a further report under s.18(3). If they are merely omissions to which the de minimis rule can be applied the examiner may ignore them or correct them with the applicant’s agreement. Otherwise, new pages should be requested.]
[Any incoming correspondence on published applications should be checked by the formalities examiner, who should redact certain personal or sensitive information from documents which may be made available for online inspection via One IPO Search (the Office’s online patent information and document inspection service). In addition, if the substantive examiner becomes aware of any personal information in any incoming correspondence they should redact it as necessary. Following a redaction, unredacted versions of documents must not be made available for online inspection. ]
18.62
Where the amendments do not meet the substantive objections, the substantive examiner should use their discretion in deciding whether to allow compliance with r.14 to be deferred further, having regard to the nature and extent of the amendments required and the unexpired compliance period remaining. If further deferment is allowed, the examiner should include in their next s.18(3) report a reminder that the r.14 objections are outstanding and that compliance will be required as soon as the substantive objections have been met. If, on the other hand, no further deferment is to be permitted, the examiner should state in their s.18(3) report that all further amendments must be filed on new pages complying with r.14.
[ In the case of private applicant cases, if after a request the applicant fails to submit pages complying with r.14 and Schedule 2 and the application is otherwise in order for grant, the application should be referred to the Formalities Manager to approve any necessary retyping in the Office. The applicant should be advised of such retyping and informed that the application will proceed to grant unless an objection to what has been done is lodged within four weeks.]
18.63
s.76(2) is also relevant
The form of the amendments is entirely a matter for the applicant, so long CoP as they do not add subject-matter. However, a full response should be made to each and every objection raised in an examination report through amendment and/or argument so as to progress the application towards grant. (For amendment other than in response to an examiner’s objections, and the timing of such amendments, see 19.13 to 19.22).
18.63.1
CoP is also relevant
Where objections are to be met by amendment, an appropriate explanation should be provided, in particular, how the amendment meets the objection, and how it is supported by the specification as originally filed. The covering letter accompanying the amendments should explain how each objection has been overcome. Where major objections related to novelty, inventive step and other patentability issues have been raised, the letter should point out where support for the amendments lies and give reasons why the amended claims overcome the objections, for example, by stating what is considered to constitute the inventive step in the independent claims.
18.63.2
CoP is also relevant
If the applicant considers an objection in an examination report to be unfounded, detailed reasons which adequately address the issue should be provided in the response. In particular, when responding to an objection to lack of inventive step, the response should assist the examiner in understanding the perspective of the skilled person at the priority date of the invention. Rebuttals which include comments such as “the invention is not obvious because no-one has done it before” and “the examiner has fallen into the trap of ex post facto analysis” and provide no technical information to enable the examiner to determine what would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art will not adequately address the objection.
18.63.3
The application may formally contain only one set of claims at any one time. Applicants sometimes file auxiliary sets of claims, which are alternative claims filed in addition to the main set of claims, for consideration in the event that the examiner has objections to the main claim set. An examiner is under no obligation to consider such auxiliary claims, but may be prepared to consider one or a small number of auxiliary claim sets if the examiner considers that they help the efficient processing of the application towards grant. It should be borne in mind that these auxiliary claims do not overcome any objections until the amendment is formally effected. Where an applicant suggests alternative claim wording without filing formal replacement pages, amendment will only be effected when replacement pages are formally filed. Where the applicant provides clear instructions informing the examiner that an auxiliary set of claims, in the form of replacement pages, should be treated as formally filed if the main claim set is found objectionable, the examiner may make the amendment to incorporate these claims without additional replacement pages being filed, but only after they have confirmed this course of action with the applicant or agent eg by telephone. The examiner should record the outcome of any such telephone conversation with the applicant or agent (see 18.74-18.78). Where more than one claim set is filed close to the compliance date but not examined until afterwards and the main claim set is objectionable, the application will not meet the requirements of the Act, since it is not possible to effect the amendment once the compliance period has expired (see Fisher Rosemount Systems’ Application BL O/238/12)). In this situation the examiner will only be able to consider such auxiliary claims if the compliance period is extended.
18.64
The examiner should aim to consider a response to a s.18(3) report within two months of its being filed. That is, within that time, the examiner should either issue a further report under s.18(3) (or other correspondence concerning outstanding matters), or issue an intention to grant letter. If a response is filed close to the end of the compliance period (i.e. with less than four months to go until the end of the compliance period), then the examiner should aim to consider a response to a s.18(3) report, within half the time remaining until the end of the compliance period. For example, if (when the applicant’s response is received in the office) two months remain until the compliance period ends, then the examiner should aim to re-examine the application within one month. In technical areas where customer demand is high it may not be possible to meet these targets, in which case examiners should give priority to the re-examination of applications which are nearest the end of their compliance period.
[ Where an application has undergone accelerated examination or accelerated CSE, any amendments received by the latest date for response should be processed as a matter of urgency, and at the latest within one month of receipt. Where the as-of-right extension to the latest date for response has been requested and amendments for an accelerated examination or CSE are received during the extended period for filing a response (or later) it will be assumed that the applicant is no longer interested in expediting the prosecution of their application. In this circumstance amendments will be processed within the usual unaccelerated timescales.]
Where, prior to receiving the response to the first s.18(3) report on the application, the substantive examiner is made aware by the applicant of any document cited in a search report for a patent application on the same invention made in another patent office that has not previously been considered, the document should be considered by the examiner as soon as possible after it has been received unless the response to the s.18(3) report is due imminently. An amended s.18(3) report should be issued if the document would give rise to a further objection. Even when the response is received before s.16 publication, the formalities examiner should refer the application to the appropriate examining group.
[Deleted]
Whether before or after s.16 publication, if the substantive examiner finds that the objections have not been met or that there are further objections, they should write a further report to be issued to the applicant (but see 18.73).
Consideration should be given as to whether the search previously made is adequate, and so whether any necessary supplementary search should be performed (see 17.115-17.117). The examiner should also consider checking to see if any further useful equivalent cases have come to light since any previous check, and consider checking the status of these (and any previously identified equivalents) using online file inspection (see 18.10.3-18.10.4). If any amendment or correction made by the applicant necessitates a supplementary search, an additional search fee may be payable under s.17(8) and s.18(1A) before substantive examination proceeds any further, see 17.120 to 17.123 and 18.03.1 to 18.03.4. If, either at this stage or after a subsequent action, there are no outstanding objections the application should proceed to grant provided that the “3 month rule” is satisfied in appropriate circumstances (see 18.07.2, 18.85-18.86).
18.65
When the applicant has restricted their claims to meet an objection to lack of novelty or of inventive step then, for the purpose of determining whether the objection has been met, the new claims must be looked at in the same way as they would have been if the specification had originally been filed with those claims. It is not sufficient for the applicant to add to their anticipated claim a feature disclosed in an example in the specification but which is no more than one of the alternative ways which the person skilled in the art would regard as available to them for carrying out the known concept originally claimed.
18.66
s.125(1) is also relevant
If the applicant argues that there is a distinction between their invention and the prior art, the substantive examiner should make sure that this distinction is reflected in the claims. If anything falling within the scope of a claim is known or obvious, that claim is bad.
18.67
s.2(2) is also relevant
An objection of lack of novelty or of inventive step based, wholly or in part, on a statement of prior art in the description should not be withdrawn solely because the applicant amends or deletes the statement, unless an adequate reason is given. For example if an applicant who has stated that a particular practice is known in the art now wishes to amend or withdraw that statement because they assert that the practice was not publicly known and thus did not form part of the state of the art, then this assertion must be categorical and unambiguous and supported by evidence.
18.68
s.125(1) is also relevant
Objection should not be raised when there are embodiments or statements in the description which are inconsistent with the claims, unless the inconsistency causes genuine difficulty in determining the scope of the claims. If an embodiment is clearly outside the scope of the claims then a skilled person, reading the claims in the light of the description, would remain in no doubt as to the scope of the claims and so no objection should be made. If, however, it is difficult to determine whether an embodiment or statement is within the scope of the claims then an objection should be made. This objection may be to the clarity of the amended claim, the portion of the description or both. The title should be consistent with the invention claimed. See 14.144.
18.69
s.14(5)(c) and s.76(2 is also relevant
Consideration should be given as to whether claims which have been amended are supported by the description (see 14.142-14.156) and whether they entail added subject-matter (see 76.04 to 76.23). Applicants may seek to restrict the claims of an application having a proportion or property expressed as a range of values to a sub-range within the original range. (The same situation arises where the original range is in a parent application and the sub-range in a divisional). In assessing amendments which restrict the scope of independent claims, examiners should be aware of the potentially very serious consequences for the applicant should such amendments be held – post-grant – to add matter. In this situation s.76(3)(b) would prevent amendment to remove the additional matter, as this would extend the protection conferred by the patent; this is potentially an “inescapable trap” (G 01/93 Advanced Semiconductor Products, OJEPO 8/94 – see 76.27).
18.69.1
There have been various approaches to assessing whether a restricting amendment to a claim is supported or adds matter. At one extreme is the view that the mention of a range is the implicit disclosure of every item falling within the range, and accordingly any sub-range can be claimed if the requirements of Section 1(1) are met since there would be support for it. At the other extreme is the view that no sub-range can be claimed unless there was mention in the application as filed of the values concerned as end points of a preferred range. Pending guidance from the courts for practice under the 1977 Act, examiners should not adopt either extreme as an automatic rule of thumb approach suitable for all cases but should decide each case on its own merits by considering whether the sub-range claimed is supported by the description and does not extend the matter disclosed. The view point should be that of a skilled person reading the document. This will involve considering what is said about the values; it is not a question of just looking for any mention of a value but rather of assessing the teaching of the document about it. It will be necessary to consider the original disclosure closely to ascertain whether there is a sufficient disclosure to support values within the sub-range e.g. whether there is reference explicit or implicit to the special advantages obtained when values are selected in the sub-range. The above guidance only applies to considerations of support for an amended claim (or claim of a divisional application). The requirements of novelty and inventive step will also have to be met. The very nature of this approach is such that detailed rules to be rigidly applied in all circumstances cannot be given. Advice should therefore be freely sought from the relevant head of examining group. In exceptional cases advice may also be sought from Patent Practice Team.
18.70
s.14(5)(d) is also relevant
Objection will have to be raised if, as a result of amendment, the claims lack unity of invention.
18.71
s.19(2) is also relevant
If, after objection has been raised, the applicant refuses or omits to acknowledge a Registered Trade Mark (see 14.97), the substantive examiner should amend the specification to acknowledge the Mark and inform the applicant that they have done so (see 19.24). If however the use of the Trade Mark is objectionable (see 14.137) the objection should be maintained.
[For procedure, see 19.24.]
18.72
The process of examination and re-examination in response to the agent’s or applicant’s replies continues until the substantive examiner is satisfied that the application complies with all requirements of the Act, or that a point is reached where disagreement between the applicant and the examiner is such that a hearing must be appointed and the matter resolved, or the application is withdrawn or refused. In the usual event, where the substantive examiner (or Hearing Officer after a hearing) is satisfied that no further objections are outstanding, the grant of a patent follows automatically (see 18.85-18.86).
[If an amendment or argument is made that means that an objection is no longer relevant, the examiner should document why the objection has been dropped, for example in an Internal Search Report, a Grant Form or a note on the timeline.]
18.72.1
CoP is also relevant
Letters filed close to the end of the compliance period should be marked prominently “urgent - compliance period expires on (date)”
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
18.73
Any objections at all which need to be raised at the first substantive examination should be set out in writing (except where the only objection is that a Trade Mark has not been acknowledged - see paragraph 18.82). When an objection needs to be raised in a subsequent action however, the examiner may attempt to resolve the matter either over the telephone or at an interview. Recourse to the telephone should particularly be considered if there is something clearly amiss with the application (e.g. the wrong pages have been filed), the applicant or agent has particularly welcomed telephone contact, or it seems likely from the written exchanges that the examiner and the applicant or agent may be at cross-purposes. A telephone or interview report which sets out the remaining objections to grant of the patent application, and specifies a period for response, can itself constitute a report under section 18(3); there is no requirement to create a separate s.18(3) report and covering letter. If the telephone or interview report is intended to be a report under s.18(3) then for the avoidance of doubt this should be explicitly stated in the report.
[In the case of a private applicant, an interview may be suggested using ELC19PA.]
[Anyone is entitled under s.22 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to have legal proceedings held in Wales conducted in Welsh without advance notice. If the applicant or their agent maintains a request insists of on conducting an interview in Welsh the substantive examiner should obtain the services of an interpreter. The Bilingual & Sign Language Speakers List on Circle should be consulted for ARD hold a list of Office personnel willing and able to act as interpreters in Welsh.]
18.74
r.51 is also relevant
A record should be made of anything said or agreed during an interview or telephone discussion which might materially affect or throw light on the prosecution of the application, and should ideally be brief. It should not contain non-essential information, or comments which the applicant or the agent wish to make off the record and which are not germane to the conclusion reached. The record will be open to public inspection and should, together with the other correspondence that are open to public inspection, present a continuous narrative of the proceedings. It should state the outcome of the discussion - for example, that a particular amended form of claim was accepted. If thought appropriate the reasons should be briefly indicated - for instance if it has been agreed that a particular form of claim is distinguished from the cited prior art, but it is not self evident why this should be so. When an objection is withdrawn as a result of fresh or further argument put forward in the discussion, the record should briefly outline the argument. If the applicant or agent puts forward an argument but indicates that they do not wish it to be made public, they must be told that it must either be recorded or disregarded. Amendments or arguments put forward during the discussion which are subsequently withdrawn or become irrelevant during the course of the same discussion need not be recorded.
[Comment by the agent which might be interpreted as critical of the applicant (or vice versa), or anything critical of a third party, should not be recorded. Time should not be spent in trying to obtain an agreed record of the Discussion.]
18.75
Any document cited and withdrawn during the course of a single discussion should nevertheless be recorded (see 18.85) unless the discussion revealed its citation to have been misconceived, eg based on a misunderstanding.
18.76
As discussed above (18.73), a telephone or interview report can itself constitute a report under section 18(3). Whether or not this is the case, if further action has been agreed at the end of the discussion, for example if the agent is to seek the applicant’s agreement to an amended claim, or is to make consequential amendments to the description, or if the substantive examiner has promised to put an argument in writing, this should be made clear in the record, as should any time limit set.
18.77
As a general rule a copy of the record should be provided to the applicant or agent with whom the discussion was held, who should be informed that any disagreement they may have should be communicated in writing.
[A reference to the record should be entered as a note on the Timeline of the relevant case. The substantive examiner should adopt whatever method appears most suitable for communicating a record of an interview or telephone conversation to the agent or applicant. In most cases, this will be a report of the telephone conversation (quoting the agent’s file reference and addressed to the applicant, c/o the agent in the usual way). However other procedures may sometimes be appropriate; for example a paragraph indicating that a requested amendment has been made could be added to a letter or report. Exceptionally in the case of interviews, the need to communicate a record may be avoided by obtaining the signature of the agent or applicant to a minute of the interview which is then made available for public inspection. ]
[If, as in most cases, the examiner chooses to create a report of the telephone conversation, they should produce a TELREP document (either as a letter directed to the address for service, or a file copy only document). For reports that are addressed to the applicant, the examiner should set a reply date if necessary. In all cases, the report should be made public and available online. Regardless of whether the report is addressed to the applicant or a file copy only, it is available to view in the customer account of the One IPO patents service, as well as online via One IPO Search once an application has been published. As such, details of the discussion or the resulting decision which are sensitive should not be included in the report, but can be recorded as a note on the Timeline of the relevant case.]
18.78
Any doubt about whether to make a record of a discussion should be resolved in favour of making the record.
18.79
s.101 is also relevant
Where the substantive examiner is unable to obtain a satisfactory response, an offer of a hearing should be made. Under most circumstances, an offer should not be made until an objection is repeated, or the application is close to the end of the compliance period with unresolved matters outstanding. Where multiple unresolved matters are outstanding, it is permissible for examiners (in consultation with their group head) to offer a hearing where an impasse has been reached on a single major substantive issue only. Note that it is desirable for a hearing to take place before the compliance period ends, see the considerations in the square bracket below. Where the compliance period has been extended under r.108(2) and a response filed at or very near the end of the extended period fails to overcome the outstanding objections, it may be necessary to issue letter EL5 (see 20.06). However, for applications relating to methods of doing business with major patentability objections, a hearing may be offered upon receiving the first response from the applicant if the examiner remains of the opinion that there is no prospect of a patent being granted. Since the comptroller must give to a party to any proceeding before them an opportunity to be heard before exercising adversely any discretion, the offer of a hearing is a prerequisite to refusing an application under s.18(3). If no reply is received to the offer the application may be allowed to lapse at the compliance date (see 20.03). (For hearings, see 101.02-101.07 Chapter 4 of the Tribunal Patents Manual and Chapter 6 of the Patent Hearings Manual.
[Before offering a hearing, the examiner should consider the following factors: (i) the length of time remaining until the compliance date; (ii) the number of times an objection has been made; (iii) the total number of s.18(3) reports issued; (iv) whether genuine progress is being made towards grant; and (v) whether there is a saving amendment.]
[Examiners should consult their group head before offering a hearing. Normally the offer will be made in writing, if time permits, by issuing letter EL35 as the covering letter with the exam report and/or including a paragraph in the exam report. Where the matter is urgent however the offer should first be made by telephone and then confirmed in writing unless the applicant or agent agrees to the immediate appointment of a hearing. The applicant should be informed that if they choose to respond to the offer of a hearing with further amendments or arguments but do not request to be heard then their application may be passed to a Hearing Officer for a decision on the papers (see 18.80). A date for response should be set.]
[The examiner should include a link to an online copy of a hearing guidance leaflet when issuing the letter if the hearing is for an unrepresented applicant.]
18.79.1
After the offer of a hearing has been accepted, the examiner should issue a final communication to the applicant, otherwise known as a pre-hearing report. This report should define all the issues to be considered at the hearing and should introduce no new objections. All the relevant arguments for each issue should be set out and any precedent cases should be referred to. It must also adequately brief the hearing officer and any assistant on the case without the need for any further report. The report should therefore raise all the outstanding issues in sufficient detail for the hearing officer to fully appreciate what is in contention, what needs to be decided and any consequential matters. Any outstanding matters or actions that have been deferred and will need to be addressed after the hearing if the application is not refused should be mentioned in this communication.
[Before issuing a pre-hearing report, examiners must ensure it has been reviewed by their group head. As well as the content noted above, the pre-hearing report should include full analysis using the appropriate legal tests, a summary of the applicant’s arguments, how the claim has been construed, any issues that have been deferred (i.e. whether the search and/or exam is complete) and any details of the compliance date and extensions if relevant. If all of the issues have been set out succinctly in the last substantive examination report then the examiner may consider it appropriate for the pre-hearing report to simply refer back to this examination report]
[If the applicant requests to be heard the examiner should notify the Challenge Patent Hearings team to arrange the hearing. Where less than two months of the unextended compliance period remain, the hearings team should be instructed to arrange the hearing as soon as possible.]
18.80
An applicant, instead of taking up an offer of a hearing may seek to continue filing observations or amendments which the examiner considers do not satisfactorily meet the objections. If this occurs near to the end of the compliance period the examiner may consider it most efficient to respond with a further report under s.18(3). The accompanying exam letter should reiterate the offer of a hearing and include appropriate reminders of the compliance date as detailed in 18.47. Exam letter EL5 may be used if the report is issued after the end of the extended compliance period (see 20.06). If the compliance period has passed, but has not been extended, an EL5 letter (modified as appropriate) may be used to tell the applicant that the application will be treated as having been refused unless they submit observations and/or requests a hearing to demonstrate that the application was in fact in order (or requests an extension of the compliance period under r.108).
However, where the offer of a hearing was made early in the examination process and no saving amendment appears possible, it is desirable to avoid multiple unproductive amendment rounds which do not progress the case towards grant. In such instances the applicant should be told in a letter that the application does not meet the requirements of s.18(3) and that a formal decision as to whether the application should be refused will be issued unless a hearing is requested or the application is withdrawn. The applicant should be informed that the application will be passed to a Hearing Officer for consideration two weeks after the date of the letter. The letter should also define all the issues to be considered in the Hearing Officer’s decision, setting out the relevant arguments on each one. It must also adequately brief the hearing officer and any assistant on the case without the need for any further pre-hearing report.
[In the case where the offer of a hearing was made early in the examination process, letter EL36 can be used to notify the applicant that a formal decision will be taken unless they withdraw the application or request a hearing. The EL36 should be edited to define all the issues to be considered, as set out above.]
[Once two weeks have passed since the date of the letter, the examiner should forward the application to a Hearing Officer for a decision on the papers]
18.80.1
If the offer of a hearing is refused and no further amendment or argument is provided the response cannot be considered an attempt to advance the case. The applicant should therefore be warned in writing that refusal is contemplated unless the outstanding matters are addressed within two months of the expiry of the period for reply originally specified (or the compliance date if that is sooner). If further arguments or amendments are filed in response to this letter and the applicant continues to decline the offer of a hearing, the procedure set out in 18.80 should be followed.
[Letter EL37 should be used in this situation.]
| Section 18(4) |
| If the examiner reports that the application, whether as originally filed or as amended in pursuance of section 15A above, this section or section 19 below, complies with those requirements at any time before the end of the prescribed period, the comptroller shall notify the applicant of that fact and, subject to subsection (5) and sections 19 and 22 below and on payment within the prescribed period of any fee prescribed for the grant, grant him a patent. |
18.81
r.31(4)(a), r.19(3)(a) r.108(1) and r.30A are also relevant
Provided that at least a full search under s.2(2) has been made for documents published before the priority date of the invention (see 17.115, accelerated search actions in particular may have been conducted before the S2(2) databases are up to date) and that an adequate opportunity has been given for s.21 observations (see 18.07.2 for discussion of the exceptions to the “3-month rule”), when it is found at the first substantive examination that the application, whether as filed or as subsequently amended, complies with the requirements of the Act and Rules then the applicant must be informed of this fact. In the same report they are informed that voluntary amendments and/or a divisional application may be made within two months of the date of the letter. This letter acts as a notification of intention to grant and indicates that the application will be sent for grant shortly after the two-month period has expired. No divisional application or voluntary amendments can be made once the application has been granted (and, in addition, after the two-month period has expired voluntary amendments can only be made with the consent of the comptroller). The application is not normally sent for grant until the two month period has expired (see 18.84). However, if in response to the report the applicant confirms in writing that they wish to waive the opportunity under rr.19 and 31(4)(a) to file any divisional applications or amendments, the pre-grant procedure (see 18.85-86) instead commences forthwith. The facility for expediting grant by waiving the two month period does not extend to late-filed (eg divisional) applications where grant is necessarily delayed until after s.16 publication. It is not possible for the applicant to request a delay to grant.
[If the application is found to be in order at first examination, the substantive examiner should carry out the pre-grant steps set out in 18.86 (including completing a grant form) and instruct the Examiner Assistants team to issue an intention to grant letter. The Examiner Assistants should consider the grant form when issuing an EL3 or EL3FO letter (if excess fees are due).]
[Where amendments have been filed, they should be acknowledged.]
[The ELC4 clause should be added when a first s.18 examination report is issued more than 3 years and 6 months after the earliest date. Similarly, the ELC5 clause should be added to a first examination report on a divisional application when the first report on the parent application was/is issued later than 3 years 6 months from the parent’s earliest date. These clauses inform the applicant of the compliance date (see 20.02). The compliance date is automatically extended by the One IPO internal system when the first examination report has been uploaded and the relevant Examination case is completed. ]
[In the situation where a top-up search is carried out at the same time as finding the application in order see 17.115.]
18.82
s.19(2) is also relevant
Where the only objection outstanding at the first examination is that a Registered Trade Mark, while allowable, is unacknowledged, the substantive examiner should amend the specification to acknowledge the Trade Mark, inform the applicant that they have done so and (for non-combined search and examination cases) issue a report as in paragraph 18.81.
[The procedure for both non-CS&E and CS&E cases is set out in 19.24-19.26.]
18.83
If amendments are filed within the prescribed two-month period the amended specification should be re-examined in the same way as a specification amended after a report under s.18(3). If as a result of the amendments the specification no longer complies with the Act and Rules a report under s.18(3) should be issued, specifying four months for reply provided sufficient of the compliance period remains. For the procedure to be followed when amendments are filed, see 19.18.
18.84
r.108(1) is also relevant
If after the end of the two month period the application has not been amended, or, if amended, it is still in order, it should be sent for grant (see 18.85-18.86.3). The two-month period is prescribed by 31(4)(a) and therefore cannot be automatically extended by two months under s.117B(3), as that section applies only to periods specified by the comptroller. However, a request for a discretionary extension of the two month period may be made under r.108(1) and should be allowed if accompanied by an adequate reason. This request may be filed retrospectively. The criterion applied in determining the adequacy of the reason should be the same as that applied when considering a request for an extension of the period specified for response to a report under s.18(3) (see 18.56-18.57). Where a convincing reason is not provided, or the reason relates to the applicant’s desire for more time to file a divisional application, the extension should be refused. If such an extension is allowed, grant should be delayed (see also 123.36.8 and 123.37).
18.84.1
The substantive examiner should defer issuing an examination report under s.18(4) if they find no objections to the application when the first substantive examination is made before the search under s.2(2) has been completed for documents published before the priority date of the application (see 17.115, accelerated search actions in particular may have been conducted before the S2(2) databases are up to date) and before an adequate opportunity has been given after s.16 publication for observations under s.21 (see 18.07.2 for situations where the three month period after publication can be waived). This is most likely to occur when combined search and examination has been requested, and the first substantive examination reveals no objections. The applicant should be informed that while the initial stage of the s.18 investigation has not revealed any objections, the investigation cannot be completed and a report under s.18 cannot issue until three months after publication, when the examiner will have considered the outcome of a supplementary search under s.17(7) and any third party observations filed under s.21. The application should not be sent to grant until after a report under s.18 has issued (see 18.84.2). The substantive examiner should create an internal diary date to return to the application at an estimated date three months after s.16 publication A note should also be added to the timeline of the relevant case in the One IPO internal system.
[When no objections are raised at the first examination stage following combined search and examination, the search report should be issued with SE3 letter. SE3 does not constitute a report to the comptroller or the applicant under s.18 and does not set any period for response. Any supplementary report on the search should be added to SE3 under an appropriate sub-heading but before the passage about publication of the application. ]
18.84.2
When the internal diary date matures, the substantive examiner should update the search and consider any voluntary amendments made by the applicant and any third party observations. If no objections are found at this time, a first substantive report under section 18(4) should be issued following the procedure set out in 18.81-18.84. On no account should the application simply be sent for grant.
18.84.3
On the other hand if there are one or more objections, for example as a result of amendments or the top-up search, a first substantive report under s.18(3) should be issued following the procedure set out in 18.47 18.80, although the period set for reply to the first or any subsequent reports should not expire earlier than two years from the priority date, or if none, the filing date. The date for completing the first substantive examination report may be deferred at the applicant’s request, without a reason being necessary, to approximately the date on which other applications, which are of the same date, normally become due for first examination under s.18.
Final procedure
18.85
As soon as there are no objections outstanding, the search is complete in respect of s.2(2) art (see 17.115, accelerated search actions in particular may have been conducted before the S2(2) databases are up to date) and third parties have had an adequate opportunity to file observations under s.21, the substantive examiner should ensure that the recorded bibliographic data (classification, cited documents, field of search) required for publication of the granted specification are correct and up to date. If less than 21 months have elapsed from the priority date or the substantive examiner is not otherwise satisfied that the search is complete in respect of s.2(3) art, the examiner should create an internal diary date to reconsider the application after grant in order to complete this search and the applicant should be informed accordingly (see 17.118).
[There is no need for examiners to defer grant procedure merely to allow the applicant time to file a divisional application; the appropriate notification of intention to grant letter will provide the applicant with at least one month’s advance notice of grant, during which time they may file a divisional (see 15.46). Note that the dates given in the EL34 or EL34FO intention to grant letters are not prescribed or specified periods and are therefore not subject to extension under r.108 or r.109 respectively.]
[Before marking an application in order for grant, the examiner should check if any further equivalent applications have become available, and consider checking the status of these (and any previously identified equivalents) using online file inspection (see 18.10.3-18.10.4).
[Except as noted in 18.07.2 no application should be marked in order for grant until three months after s.16 publication so as to allow the opportunity for s.21 observations and a top-up search. If during this period the substantive examiner is content that previous objections have been resolved and no new ones arise, they should add a note to the timeline of the relevant case in the One IPO internal system accordingly, and create an internal diary date for reconsideration of the application at an estimated date three months after publication so that the search can be updated. If the diary date is for more than one month from the date of receipt of the last response by the applicant, the examiner should also issue an EL32 letter to acknowledge the response. Any third-party observations filed in the intervening period should be copied to the applicant and considered by the examiner without delay.]
[For updates to classification symbols, see 18.86. Any document cited (formally or otherwise) or new field searched which was not listed on the A document should be recorded as soon as possible, for eventual inclusion on the front page of the B document.]
18.86
s.14(9) and S.19 is also relevant
The examiner should then complete the necessary pre-grant steps before marking an application in order for grant.
[ When the substantive examiner is satisfied that there are no objections outstanding and that the application may go forward to grant, they should create a grant form (If a top-up search is carried out at the same time as finding the application in order, see 17.115). The grant form acts as an instruction from the examiner to the examiner assistant to issue the relevant intention to grant letter (EL3/EL3FO or EL34/EL34FO, see 18.81 and 18.86.2). It is the responsibility of the examiner putting the case forward to grant to ensure that the content of the intention to grant letter is suitable for, and tailored to, the individual circumstances of the case being granted. This can be done by using the appropriate tick-box options present on the form and/or providing free-text for the EAs to insert into the intention to grant letter where appropriate. For situations in which intention to grant letters may need to be amended see 17.115, 17.118 and 73.07 - note that examiners should only use clauses RC31, RC31[A] or RC31[B] in intention to grant letters to bring to the attention of applicants s.73(2) conflict that has not previously been raised in a s.18(3) examination report. The examiner can also use the grant form to explain why major objections were dropped, if this has not been recorded elsewhere e.g. in a note on the Timeline of a relevant case in One IPO. The grant form can also be used to record other file note information for the benefit of examiner assistants e.g. waivers to s.21 periods for divisional applications. (The abstract is not published as part of the granted patent; therefore no revision or amendment of the abstract by the substantive examiner is necessary at this stage. Moreover if amendment to the abstract is filed no action should be taken except as referred to in 14.191).]
[The examiner should enter the grant title and update the field of search (subclasses and databases searched), classification, and citations in the One IPO internal system.]
[All IPC and CPC classification symbols should be updated and validated to ensure they are current and appropriate at B stage, due to possible changes to classification schemes and/or amendments giving rise to changes in the identified invention information. Where necessary, such updates may include the entry of new classification symbols or a decision not to apply a previously-applied symbol at B stage. If any classifications are invalid these should be edited or deactivated as required.]
[ Only new subclasses (including associated subgroups), databases or citations from the top up search need to be added. There is no requirement to record any field of search if the top-up search has not extended the original search to cover new databases or subclasses. For applications transitioned into One IPO from legacy systems, the field of search (subclasses and databases) and citations might already have been pre-populated with data from previous searches. These should not be deactivated.]
[The title should be entered into the grant title field in the One IPO internal system.]
[It is the substantive examiner’s responsibility to see that the documents going forward for grant have been properly assembled and marked as Working Copy (WC). The specification should contain only those pages which are to form part of the published B document.]
[Once the substantive examiner is satisfied that all of the above steps have been completed, they should instruct the Examiner Assistants team to issue an intention to grant letter.]
[Upon issuing the intention to grant letter, the Examiner Assistants should instruct Formalities to prepare the application for B-publication. Any necessary re-numbering of the pages will be carried out by the formalities examiner before grant (see 14.34). Should formalities find any issues with an application, they should stop the grant process and refer the application back to the examiner or group head if the examiner isn’t available. Formalities examiners will remove any information (apart from date stamps) contained within the margins of pages being put forward for B publication, and redact personal information from documents to be B-published.]
[ Where a request for amendment is filed after the case has been sent for grant but before issue of the grant letter (also known as the B-publication letter), action should be taken as in 14.206 mutatis mutandis. Grant should if possible be stopped to allow the request to be dealt with, but if it is too late to prevent production or issue of the grant letter it may be necessary to rescind grant. The need to rescind grant should if possible be avoided by dealing with the request sufficiently quickly for the granted patent (including any amendment allowed) still to be published on the date foreshadowed in the grant letter. ]
18.86.1
If the application was found to be in order for grant at first examination, and remains in order after the relevant period has passed (see 18.84), the application should be sent for grant.
[The examiner assistant should check if new documents, such as voluntary amendments, have been filed. If voluntary amendments have been filed, then the examiner assistant should not send the application to grant until the substantive examiner has processed the voluntary amendments and either an EL4 letter has been issued to accept the amendments or an EL9 letter has been issued refusing the amendment and the latest date for response to the EL9 has passed with no response received (see 19.20-19.22.1). If a divisional is filed, there is no need to withhold the parent application from proceeding to grant. If an EL3FO was issued, the examiner assistant will also check if the grant fee has been paid.]
[If the grant fee is not paid by the deadline in the EL3FO the Examiner Assistant should issue a reminder letter to the applicant. This letter will remind the applicant of the need to pay the grant fee and inform them that as they have missed the deadline a request for an extension of time (Form 52 if filed by paper), with the appropriate fee (if any), is now required for them to do so. The 2 month response date provided in the EL3FO letter is a prescribed period set by rule 30A of the Patents Rules for paying the grant fee. This period can be extended by 2 months ‘as of right’ by filing a request for an extension of time with the appropriate fee (if any). Further extensions are possible but are subject to the comptroller’s discretion. If the fee remains unpaid and no further extensions are available the application will be terminated by formalities once the compliance date has expired. Once terminated the applicant may apply for reinstatement in the usual way (see section 28).]
18.86.2
r.30A is also relevant
If the application is found to be in order for grant at a later examination stage, then an intention to grant letter should be issued by the examiner assistant.
[In the situation where a top-up search is carried out at the same time as finding the application in order see 17.115.]
[The examiner assistant will consider the grant form, check whether any grant fees are due and issue either a EL34 or EL34FO letter.]
[The EL34FO letter should only be issued by the Examiner Assistant if the number of excess pages or claims have increased since the filing of the requests for search and examination. If this is the case a grant fee will be requested in the EL34FO letter based on the increase in excess claims or excess pages.]
[When issuing the EL34 or EL34FO intention to grant letter, the Examiner Assistant should create an appropriate internal diary date to return to the application one week after the reply date specified on the letter (1 month for EL34 and 2 months for EL34FO, since the applicant has 2 months in which to pay their grant fee). When the diary date has matured,if no new documents have been filed since the issue of either the EL34 or the EL34FO letters, the grant fee has been paid in respect of the latter, and formalities has completed preparation of the application for B-publication, the Examiner Assistant should assign the application to the Publishing team for grant. If new documents have been filed, such as voluntary amendments, the examiner assistant should not send the application to grant until the substantive examiner has processed the voluntary amendments and either an EL4 letter has been issued to accept the amendments or an EL9 letter has been issued refusing the amendment and the latest date for response on the EL9 has passed with no response being received.]
[If the grant fee is not paid by the deadline in the EL34FO the Examiner Assistant should issue a reminder letter to the applicant. This letter will remind the applicant of the need to pay the grant fee and inform them that as they have missed the deadline a request for an extension of time (Form 52 if filed by paper), with the appropriate fee (if any), is now required for them to do so. The 2 month response date provided in the EL34FO letter is a prescribed period set by rule 30A of the Patents Rules for paying the grant fee. This period can be extended by 2 months ‘as of right’ upon request with the appropriate fee (if any). Further extensions are possible but are subject to the comptroller’s discretion. If the fee remains unpaid and no further extensions are available the application will be terminated by formalities once the compliance date has expired. Once terminated the applicant may apply for reinstatement in the usual way (see section 28).]
[The EL34 notification of intention to grant is different to the EL34FO in that it does not specify a period in which an action must be taken, but simply notifies the applicant of the fact grant is going to take place within a particular timescale. It follows that no as-of-right extension is available to the date given in these letters.]
[If a written request is received from the applicant to send the application to grant sooner than the date indicated in either the EL34 or EL34FO (thus waiving the opportunity to file any divisional applications or voluntary amendments) , the Examiner Assistant team should be notified. The Examiner Assistant will check that any grant fee due has been paid and instigate grant action without delay by taking the steps outlined above. This action should only be taken where a request for accelerated grant is received after the intention to grant letter has been issued. Requests received before the intention to grant letter has been issued or requests to forgo the issue of an intention to grant letter must be denied (by an Examiner Assistant) and the applicant should be advised (by an Examiner Assistant) that grant can be brought forward only if requested in writing after the issue of the intention to grant letter.]
[If voluntary amendments are received at a later examination stage but before an EL34/EL34FO notification of intention to grant letter has been issued, see 19.20. For situations in which voluntary amendments are received after an intention to grant letter has been issued, or after the compliance date has passed, see 18.88-18.89 and 19.22-19.22.1.]
18.86.3
A grant letter is then issued informing the applicant under s.18(4) that the application complies with the requirements of the Act and Rules and that a patent is therefore granted. The date of this letter is the date of grant for all provisions of the Act prior to s.25(1); in particular, the application may not be withdrawn or amended on or after this date (for amendment of a granted patent, see s.27). In the same letter, the applicant is informed of the date when notice of the grant will be published in the Journal. This practice was confirmed by the Hearing Officer in ITT Industries Inc’s Application [1984] RPC 23 (see especially page 27 line 20 onwards).
18.86.4
No application should be sent to grant without first having a notification of intention to grant issued. This is true even for applications which are found in order for grant near or after the compliance date.
[The EL34/EL34FO is the notification of intention to grant letter that is most likely to be issued near or after the compliance date. There is no need for examiners to modify the letter purely because it is issued near or after the compliance date as it is written such that it is correct even if the compliance date is imminent or has passed. However there are a variety of circumstances which may necessitate modification of EL34/EL34FO – see for example 17.115, 17.118, and 73.07 if conflict is found at the point of issuing an intention to grant letter.]
[The date in the EL34/EL34FO should not be altered from its default of one month. This can mean that the latest date for reply is after the compliance date. This is not a problem because an application can be sent to grant after the compliance date.]
18.86.5
r.108(2) and r.108(3) is also relevant
Rule 108(2) and rule 108(3) can be used to request extensions to the compliance period after the intention to grant letter has been issued, providing the application has not been sent to grant. Therefore it would be good practice for the applicant to request any extension to the compliance period before the date set out in the intention to grant letter. Requests for discretionary extensions under r.108(3) should be handled in the usual manner (see 20.02). If the compliance period is extended in this way, the application will still be sent to grant in the timescale set out in the notification of intention to grant letter. Extending the compliance period in this way may make it possible to file a divisional on time.
18.87
If an applicant has requested accelerated examination and desires grant for a particular date, and the request for the former is accepted by the examiner assistant, an effort should be made to achieve B -publication (see 24.04 and 25.02) by the desired date but it will be impossible to guarantee to do so. The applicant should be told that publication will, if possible, occur by the requested date and should also be told if it proves impossible to do so.
[ Any application which has undergone accelerated substantive examination should be identified by the appropriate tag on the relevant Examination cases in the One IPO internal system. If grant by a particular date has been requested, a note should be added to the Timeline of the relevant case in One IPO to alert the substantive examiner to the request. When the application is in order, after completing the necessary pre-grant steps in One IPO (see 18.86), the examiner should check whether that date can be met, and whether an early grant request is required from the applicant to send the application onto grant sooner than the date indicated on the intention to grant letter (see 18.86.2). If the desired date for grant cannot be met, the applicant should be informed, and it should be noted that there are no established Office procedures for providing “instant” grant of a patent. ]
Action after issue of a report under S.18(4)
18.88
As a consequence of the terms of s.18(4), once a notification of intention to grant has issued (see 18.81 ) and 18.86.2 informing the applicant that their application complies with the requirements of the Act and Rules then, unless the application has in the meantime been amended in such a way that it no longer complies, a patent must be granted. Grant cannot be withheld because prior art subsequently comes to light (e.g. because of action within the Office, as the result of observations from a third party, or where the applicant makes the office aware of documents cited against a patent application for the same invention made in another patent office) which casts doubt on patentability (Nokia Mobile Phones (UK) Ltd’s Application - [1996] RPC 733). If there is no doubt that new prior art found by the examiner would have given rise to a major objection the applicant should be informed of it since they may wish to amend either before grant (if the grant letter referred to in 18.86.3 has not yet issued) or after grant. Likewise any third party observations should be copied to the applicant (see 21.20, 21.23). The applicant should be informed that grant will be delayed for two months (in order to give them time to decide whether to amend) unless they request earlier grant. If the applicant chooses not to amend, the new prior art should not be listed on the front page of the B publication since this might suggest that it had been properly considered and the application considered acceptable over it. If any of the new prior art forms part of the state of the art by virtue of s.2(3) and is citable against lack of novelty, the applicant should be warned that action may be taken after grant (see 73.02). If a divisional application is filed on the application in suit, see 15.46. For situations in which voluntary amendments are received after an intention to grant letter has been issued, see 19.22-19.22.1.
[ Regardless of how new found prior art comes to light before grant but after an 18(4) report has already issued, i.e. whether it is via the examiner or a third-party, if the grant letter has not yet issued the examiner should contact the Examiner Assistants to ensure that grant is delayed for two months, inform the applicant as above (this can be done by issuing letter EL23D in the case of third-party observations or a manually edited version of EL23D in the case of examiner late-found prior art), and add a diary date to reconsider the application after two months.]
[ If third-party observations are filed prior to issuance of a grant letter but too late to prevent its issuance, then in the absence of any irregularity of office procedure (see 18.89 below) the grant stands and the procedure for processing third-party observations received after grant should be followed (see 21.23 onwards).]
Limited circumstances in which grant or a s.18(4) report may be rescinded
18.89
r.107 and r.33(5) are also relevant
The legislation provides no possibility to rescind grant or a s.18(4) report other than in circumstances where there has been an irregularity in Office procedure falling within the terms of r.107. Requests from applicants to rescind grant simply in order to allow the filing of voluntary amendments or a divisional application (that was not clearly foreshadowed) cannot therefore be acceded to if there has been no such irregularity. Applicants should be advised of possible actions open to them after grant, for example, amendments under section 27. Irregularities in the grant procedure which may justify rescinding grant may occur when:
r.33(4) is also relevant
(i) third party observations, which the examiner considers give rise to a wellfounded objection, were received before issue of the intention to grant letter or s.18(4) report, but too late to prevent its issue; or
(ii) a request by the applicant to withdraw the application or to file voluntary amendments was received in the Office prior to issuing the grant letter, but too late to prevent its issue; or
(iii) the examiner had explicitly agreed with the applicant that amendment to the description could be attended to at a later date pending the examiner’s acceptance of the claims, but the application was then inadvertently marked in order for grant before such amendments were made.
18.90
If it is necessary to rescind grant or a notification of intention to grant made under s.18(4), the examiner should issue a letter stating that the report under s.18(4) was made in error and is rescinded. If the grant letter has issued (see 18.86.3) it will also be necessary to cancel the grant. A report should then be made under s.18(3) setting out the objection and specifying two months (or six months if the examiner’s report under s.18(4) was the first report under s.18) for reply, unless the time available makes a shorter period appropriate; this may be increased to four months if major amendment is required and sufficient of the compliance period remains. If s.21 observations were filed near to the end of the compliance period, that period may have been extended as described in 20.02.1.
[Cancellation of the grant may only be initiated by contacting the publication liaison officer, who will call a meeting of all the interested parties (see 14.206). The letter rescinding the grant letter and/or report made under s.18(4) should identify the writer and provide a contact telephone number. A fresh report should be made for communication to the applicant. When the remaining time is so short as to require urgent action, the applicant should if possible be given forewarning by telephone to provide opportunity for the filing of an extension of time request (Patents Form 52 if filed by paper). ]
| Section 18(5) |
| Where two or more applications for a patent for the same invention having the same priority date are filed by the same applicant or his successor in title, the comptroller may on that ground refuse to grant a patent in pursuance of more than one of the applications. |
18.91
s.130(1), s.89(1), s.78(2) and s.73(2) are also relevant
For this subsection to have effect the conflicting applications must be applications for patents under this Act, including international applications designating the UK which have entered the national phase as domestic applications under the provisions of s.89. It does not apply to conflict with an application for a European patent (UK), since this is not treated as an application under the Act for the purposes of s.18(5); such conflict can only be dealt with under s.73(2) when each of the relevant patents have been granted (see 73.05-73.09).
18.92
The stricture of s.18(5) applies not only when the conflicting applications have identical applicants or groups of applicants, but also when the applications have an applicant in common, or when an applicant in one case derives their right to be granted a patent from a person who is an applicant in the other case, for example by assignment or by contract of employment, or in any other way.
18.93
For the grant to be refused on an application which conflicts with another, the priority dates in question must be the same, including the case where one application claims priority from the other, or where one is divided from the other and claims the same priority. It should be borne in mind that it is the priority dates of the respective inventions (see 5.20-5.24) which must be considered, rather than the declared priority dates of the applications. (If the priority dates of the respective inventions are not the same, then one may form part of the state of the art in respect of the other; if so, appropriate action under s.18(3) or s.73(1) should be considered).
18.94
Conflict between applications should be drawn to the attention of the applicant (using clause RC32) as soon as it is detected (but not before the first substantive examination), since it is desirable that the matter be dealt with before any of the patents has been granted, so that the applicant may decide how they wish the conflict to be resolved, for example by amending to distinguish the inventions from one another or by deciding which application should proceed. Once a patent has been granted on one of the applications, for example if one application is accelerated (see 15.46 – last square bracket), conflict can still be avoided either by amendment of the outstanding application or by amendment under s.27 in respect of the granted patent, since an amendment under s.27 has effect retrospectively from the date of grant. However, the situation cannot be saved by surrendering the granted patent, since this action is not retrospective (IBM Corporation (Barclay and Bigar’s) Application [1983] RPC 283). There is no provision for dealing with a conflict between patents having the same priority date and granted to the same applicant, other than in the particular circumstances dealt with by s.73(2).
18.95
The tests for determining under s.18(5) whether two UK applications relate to the same invention are the same as for deciding under s.73(2) whether a UK patent conflicts with a European patent (UK). The phrase “for the same invention” under both s.18(5) and s.73(2) is regarded as embodying the long-standing principle that the same monopoly should not be granted twice over. Thus it covers not only the situation where respective applications contain main claims explicitly including all of the same features but also where the main claims differ in their wording but their scope does not differ in substance. The examiner should examine the independent claims only in their consideration of this issue; dependent claims do not need to be examined for both s.18(5) and s.73(2) conflict (see 18.95.1). The degree of overlap which is allowable must be decided on the facts of the case, having regard to the state of the art, and the applicant may be able to show that there is a significant distinction between apparently conflicting claims. A product-by-process claim should be considered an independent claim for the purposes of assessing conflict.
18.95.1
Examiners will only consider conflict in relation to independent claims. The case law below provides useful guidance in relation to various issues that underpin the assessment of conflict and is therefore still of relevance, despite on occasion making references to conflict in dependent claims.
18.96
Maag Gear Wheel and Machine Co Ltd’s Patent [1985] RPC 572 was a decision of the comptroller which related to an objection under s.73(2). In this case, which concerned a pivoted pad journal bearing for a shaft, the claims of the European Patent (UK) explicitly defined additional “pad geometry” features not found in the claims of the UK patent. However, the hearing officer observed that, even though the claims of the UK patent were not explicitly limited to the pad geometry claimed by the EP(UK) patent, that pad geometry was the only construction disclosed in the UK patent. Therefore, he construed claim 1 of the UK patent as protecting a journal bearing including that pad geometry and accordingly found the patents to be in conflict.
In IBM Corporation (Barclay and Bigar’s) Application [1983] RPC 283, before the comptroller, a claim to a solution containing a compound in a concentration “less than 0.03M and sufficiently low to give a perceptively lighter colour …..”, and a claim to a solution containing the same compound in a concentration “less than or equal to 0.02 Molar”, were also held to be for the same invention. In this case, although the wording of the claims differed, the wording of the claims led to the same result (because in order for the concentration in question to give the required perceptively lighter colour it would have to be less than or equal to 0.02M) and the scope of the claims therefore did not differ in substance.
In Marley (UK) Ltd’s Patent [1994] RPC 231 the Court of Appeal decided that the correct construction of s.73(2) was the literal one that the UK patent may be revoked if the claims of the UK and European (UK) patents are for the same invention. The court found that a claim to a product will conflict with a claim to the same product as produced by a specific process. In Marley, claim 1 of the UK patent related to concrete articles made of a particular composition and having particular qualities whilst claim 8 of the European patent (UK) related to such concrete articles, but produced by a particular process. Balcombe LJ held that claim 1 of the UK patent was for the same invention as claim 8 of the European patent. It is perhaps worth noting that, after the House of Lords’ judgment in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, such a “product-by-process” claim would be construed as a claim to the product (see 14.120-1), thus also leading to the conclusion that the UK and European (UK) patents related to the same invention. Note, in this case, claim 8 is considered in effect to be an independent claim.
18.97
In Arrow Electric Switches Ltd’s Applications 61 RPC 1 (1944), it was decided under the 1949 Act that where the respective UK patent applications were directed to distinct inventions A and B, it is allowable for one of the applications to contain a claim to the combination of A and B. (However, it would not have been allowable for both applications to contain such a claim.) In this case, one application was a divisional of the other application, as a consequence of a plurality objection. Invention A was an electric switch and invention B was a means for operating an electric switch. The question of double jeopardy from infringement arising out of a single act was considered by Morton J. in the Arrow case and they concluded that it would be unduly hard on inventors if protection for the combination A and B were denied because its unauthorised use could result in a suit under both the patents.
In Kimberley-Clark Worldwide Inc’s Patent (BL O/279/04), in relation to s.73(2), claims comprising feature A in the UK patent were held not to be the same invention as the claims in the European patent (UK) comprising features A and B. In the case in question the hearing officer considered that the inclusion of feature B in the European patent (UK) lead to a difference in substance between the two claims, and therefore no revocation action was taken. In SeeReal Technologies SA (BL O/261/12) the Hearing Officer, when assessing conflict between claim 1 of a divisional application and claim 1 of the parent application, confirmed the practice followed in Kimberley-Clark Worldwide Inc’s Patent (BL O/279/04). The decision in SeeReal Technologies SA (BL O/261/12) (PDF, 85.1KB) also highlighted the importance of claim construction when assessing conflict, with reference to Maag Gear Wheel and Machine Co Ltd’s Patent [1985] RPC 572.
In Koninklijke Philips Electronics n.v. v Nintendo of Europe GmbH [2014] EWHC 1959 (Pat), Birss J (as he then was) gave full consideration to the issue of so-called ‘‘double patenting’’ (see also 75.05.1). At paragraph 310 of his judgment he stated; ‘‘I find that as a matter of UK law a double patenting objection taken as a ground for refusing a post-grant amendment to a claim can be taken but should only be taken in the following circumstances:
i) The two patents must have the same priority dates and be held by the same applicant (or its successor in title).
ii) The two claims must be for the same invention, that is to say they must be for the same subject matter and by this I mean they must have the same scope. The scope is considered as a matter of substance. Trivial differences in wording will not avoid the objection but if one claim covers embodiments which the other claim does not, then the objection does not arise.
iii) The two claims must be independent claims. This necessarily follows from the rejection of the point on overlapping scope. If two independent claims have different scope then there is no reason to object even if the patents contain dependent claims with the same scope. The point might arise later if an amendment is needed e.g. to deal with a validity attack but in the case the point can be taken then.
iv) If the objection arises in the Patents Court in which both patents are before the court then it can be cured by an amendment or amendments to either patent.
v) Even if the objection properly arises in the sense that two relevant claims have the same scope, if the patentee has a legitimate interest in maintaining both claims then the amendment should not be refused.’’
Although this case dealt with conflict issues in relation to post-grant amendments, and therefore is not binding practice for the office in relation to pre-grant conflict, the same considerations are expected to apply when assessing conflict for pre-grant cases as apply for post-grant cases following Koninklijke.
18.97.1
The EPO Technical Boards of Appeal in T 1790/12 and T 879/12 held that a divisional application with second medical use claims of the form “Substance X for use in the treatment of disease Y” did not conflict with a parent application with “Swiss-type” second medical use claims of the form “The use of substance X in the manufacture of a medicament to treat disease Y”. Although s.18(5) and s.73(2) are not derived from provisions of the EPC, in view of this EPO case law, no objection should be raised under s.18(5) or s.73(2) to conflict between applications including the new form of second medical use claim and granted GB or EP patents which protect the same medical use solely through Swiss-type claims (see 4A.27.1).
18.98
Sections 17 and 18 of the Manual refer at various points to the process of combined search and examination. In particular, references are to be found at 17.35, 17.94.10, 17.108, 17.115, 18.03, 18.06, 18.08,18.39-41, 18.47-49, 18.82, 18.84.1-18.84.3 and 19.26.
[ Examiners in particular should be aware of the different procedures which apply when processing combined search and examination applications. Of particular help will be the examiners’ aide-memoire for combined search and examination applications below.
Identifying CS&E cases
1). A “Patent File, Search & Exam (CSE)” service request is created in the One IPO internal system when an applicant applies for a “Filing Date, Search and Examination” on the One IPO patents service, or when a request for search and a request for examination are filed on the same day using Patents Form 1, 7, 9A & 10 (if filed by paper).
2). All CS&E applications are identified by the appropriate service request type.
3). Where an examination request is received before the search is completed, a CS&E may be performed (see 18.03
Action on arrival in an examining group
4). CS&E applications take their place with applications awaiting search unless accelerated search and examination has been requested (see 20, below).
Search and First Substantive Examination
5). Where examination reveals objections the search and examination reports are issued together with SE1 (SE1PA) setting a latest date for reply 2 years from the priority/filing date. Before the search and examination cases are completed the appropriate internal status is set (normally either “Search in progress” if no abstract is filed or “Search completed – prepare for publication”).
6). Where examination does not reveal any objection only the search report is issued with SE3 (SE3PA). Before the search and examination cases are completed the appropriate internal status is set. The application is then diarised for return to the examiner 3 months after A-publication.
7). When the diary date is reached three months after A-publication the search is topped up and any voluntary amendments considered. A first examination report is then issued under s.18(4) using EL3 (EL3FO) or under s.18(3) using EL1 (EL1PA), with RC8 included in the examination report to acknowledge any voluntary amendments, if appropriate. On no account should the application simply be sent for grant. The latest date for reply is based on the normal 2 months for EL3 (EL3FO) and the later of 4 months from the date of the letter or 2 years from the priority/filing date for EL1 (EL1PA).
Acknowledgement of Registered Trade Marks
8). The examiner should check at first examination stage whether any unacknowledged terms are registered trade marks. If the examination has not revealed any objections, the examiner should amend the specification to acknowledge the mark (see 19.23-19.26) and inform the applicant by adding the SC2 clause to the SE3 (SE3PA) letter. If other objections are to be raised, the applicant should be asked to acknowledge the mark, using RC11 (optionally RC11[12] if the Trade Mark is used in a claim) added to the first s.18(3) report.
Amendments
9). Amendment before the issue of the search report is allowable with the Comptroller’s consent and account should be taken of any such amendment during CS&E.
10). New or amended claims filed voluntarily or as part of a full response to the examination report before preparations for publication are complete are published in the A-document in the normal way.
11). [Deleted]
12). A response to an examination report received after A-publication is considered in the normal way.
13). If a further examination report is issued the period for reply is set to expire two years from the priority/filing date or after the normal four or two months, whichever is later.
14). No application is to be marked In Order until three months after A-publication. If all earlier objections are met before this date, then the application is diarised for reconsideration by the examiner at the end of that period. EL32 is issued if the diarised date is for more than one month ahead.
A-publication
15). On publication the internal status for CS&E applications is set automatically to Published.
Third party observations
16). Any third party observations are copied to the applicant immediately. With applications diarised because no objections are outstanding the examiner also considers them without delay. On applications where a response to an examination report is awaited the examiner has the usual option of deferring consideration until the response is filed.
Extension of periods specified at CS&E stage or later
17). Requests for extension of the period for reply given in a substantive examination report should be treated in the normal way. If requested, on cases where no examination report is issued at CS&E, the issue of the first s.18 report can be deferred until applications not subject to CS&E are expected to receive their first s.18 examination.
Top-up searches
18). Examiners complete the search for s.2(2) art and if possible also for s.2(3) art as soon as practical and certainly before issue of EL3 (EL3FO) or in other circumstances immediately before grant. Online databases are generally sufficiently up to date 3 months from the priority/filing date for the s.2(2) field and 21 months from the priority/filing date for the s.2(3) field.
19). Where an application is sent to grant before 21 months or the s.2(3) search is otherwise not complete, the examiner diaries it for return at some appropriate time after grant to complete the search. Any s.2(3) objection arising is made under s.73(1) in the normal way.
Accelerated search and examination
20). The normal procedure for accelerated search should be followed but with the examination done at the same time as the search.
Early grant
21). This depends on the applicant requesting accelerated publication (which is handled normally), otherwise the procedure is the same as with any other CS&E applications.
Divisional applications
22). If a divisional application qualifies for CS&E the search and examination are done together even if this was not the case for the parent application and /or the search has effectively been done following a request on the parent. If the parent application has not been substantively examined this may be done at the same time as the divisional (provided a request for examination has been made) unless the applicant or agent agrees otherwise.
23). ELC5 should be added to the covering letter of the first s.18 report on a divisional application where the first report on the parent application was issued later than three years and six months from the priority or filing date. This is to remind the applicant that the unextended period for putting the divisional application in order expires 12 months from the date of issue of the first report on the earliest parent application.
24). The need to delay grant for 3 months after publication to allow for s.21 observations should be waived where the invention claimed in the divisional was clearly claimed in the parent, and the parent has been published for at least 3 months.
Refunds
25). Normally no refunds should be made if the search and examination reports or just the search report have been issued.]
18.99
The following aide-memoire for examiners reflects the practice described in 18.53-18.60.
An as-of-right extension of two months, or until the compliance date if sooner, is available to the period for reply specified in s.18 examination reports. The extension:
- must be requested in writing, using the “Request to extend a deadline” function in the One IPO patents service, in the covering letter accompanying the response or, alternatively, by email to pateot@ipo.gov.uk (telephone requests are not allowable)
- may be requested retrospectively up to the expiry of the extended period
- is available only once for any given report round
- must be for two months, or until the compliance date if sooner, whether or not it is needed or wanted; extensions for shorter time periods are not available.
An extension further to the as-of-right extension may be requested but:
- is only available if the as-of-right extension was requested
- the request must be made before the expiry of the period as extended by right
- is discretionary, but one single extension of up to one month on a given period is generally allowable.
- does not usually need to be requested in writing
- must give an adequate reason; if no reason is given, one should be asked for
- may be requested at the same time as the as-of-right extension
- must take into account how much time is left of the compliance period
Requests for additional further extensions:
- must be made before expiry of the period as already extended.
- require a strong reason to be allowed.
- should be for the minimum required (normally < 1 month) to fix the problem.
Where a late reply is received and no extension is available because the period for requesting an extension has expired, the reply should be referred to the examiner:
- If no reason is given for the late reply, the examiner should ask for one; if no reason is forthcoming, the application will be refused
- If a reason is given, the examiner should consider it and decide whether to exercise the discretion provided under section 18(3) to accept the late reply (despite it falling outside the specified period)
Administrative points:
-
requests for all extensions (i.e. as-of-right and discretionary) may be emailed to [pateot@ipo.gov.uk] – an automatic reply will be sent. We do not guarantee to recognise requests sent to any other email address
-
requests for extensions emailed direct to examiners should be handled as follows:
email requests for as-of-right extensions should be forwarded to formalities to be put on file. You have discretion whether or not to reply but if you do, you should encourage the agent to use an alternative route, e.g. the pateot@ipo.gov.uk service.
in the case of a discretionary request, you should consider the request and respond, ensuring copies of all correspondence are placed on file.
-
no telephone requests for as-of-right extensions are allowable – encourage agent/applicant to use above dedicated email address rather than write a letter
-
replies to requests for discretionary extensions may be dealt with by telephone or in writing but ensure audit trail is complete. In all cases, a complete record (letter, telephone or email report) of events and reason for the request must be on file.
18.100
The following aide-memoire for examiners reflects various practices used to aid efficient processing of applications at substantive examination.
[Efficient processing of applications: Examiners’ aide-memoire]
Prior to commencement of examination – use of examination opinions at search stage
1) If major issues are identified at search stage, then an examiner may issue a non-statutory examination opinion (see MoPP 17.83.3). The purpose of this opinion is to encourage applicants to address major defects in their application before requesting examination. If following issuance of an examination opinion the applicant requests substantive examination but offers no amendment or rebuttal to the opinion, then the examiner can reissue the examination opinion as the first examination report under s.18(3) (see MoPP 18.47.1), in which case the report is known as an abbreviated examination report (AER).
2) Examiners are encouraged to make use of any commentary in their ISR to complete an examination opinion at search stage, where it would be likely to aid efficient processing in the event the application proceeded to substantive examination.
Prior to commencement of examination – use of examination PEN letters
3) Pre-examination Notification (PEN) letters can be issued if major issues are identified at search stage before the application is due to be examined. These letters request that the applicant either amends or withdraws before the first examination report is issued. PEN letters can be adapted to refer to the specifics of the application in hand, such as whether there is an IPRP present, foreign equivalents or grants, or an exam opinion has been issued. These letters are not reports issued under the Patents Act 1977, they are merely an attempt to communicate with the applicant and encourage amendment or withdrawal when major issues are present - applicants are not obliged to respond.
Truncated examination reports – standard clause RC47
4) On applications with major issues, examiners may defer consideration of minor examination issues in a first s.18(3) report until the identified major issues are resolved. Examination reports that are limited to major objections only are known as ‘‘truncated’’ examination reports (TERs). TERs are intended as a time-efficient way to deal with substantive examinations on both domestic and PCT applications that have major issues. The examiner should still identify any equivalent applications but should use their judgement to decide which of equivalents reports and citations to consider (see 18.10.1- 18.10.4).
5) If examiners wish to truncate an examination report then they should create a standard s.18(3) examination report and insert standard clause RC47 into the report as the first clause RC47 reads:
Scope of report
This is a truncated examination report limited to major objections. I am deferring full examination of your application, including updating of the search, until you have addressed these objections.
6) Clause RC47 may be used in a CSE examination report, but in this situation examiners should take care to delete the reference to ‘‘updating of the search’’.
7) When sending out a TER, examiners can either use: i) clauses EC1-8, which are a set of standard clauses specifically designed for use with examination opinions, AERs and TERs, or, ii) standard RC clauses, as they see fit.
Highlighting the existence of equivalents to applicants - standard clause RC48
8) Standard clause RC48 in is intended for use when the claims of the GB application are heavily anticipated, and the substantive examiner is aware of equivalent applications that reveal additional citations that may also be relevant to the issue of patentability. Clause RC48 reads:
Equivalent applications
I am aware of the following patent applications which are equivalents of this application: {Examiner list equivalent applications here}. I have not reviewed these equivalent applications in detail at this stage, however it is likely that any amendment made to these applications will be required in connection with this application. Therefore, please consider the citations raised against these equivalent applications when amending the present application in response to this report.
9) If an examiner is using RC48 then it means that they consider the equivalent citations to be prima facie relevant to the issue of patentability, but they have not considered their content in detail and they are not formally citing them against the application in suit. It follows then that documents cited against equivalent applications should not be recorded as citations in the One IPO internal system merely because reference is made to them when using RC48. Such citations should, however, be formally recorded in One IPO at a later stage if they are cited as part of a formal objection against the GB application in a subsequent exam report.
Making use of international work products – Standard Letter EL1C
10) In the case of PCT applications, EL1C serves the function of an AER and is issued when an examiner is in agreement with the findings of international work products, i.e. the International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP) issued under Chapter I by the International Search Authority (ISA), or Chapter II (also known as the International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER)) issued by the International Preliminary Examination Authority (IPEA).
11) The EL1C is a standard letter and can be tailored to provide further information to the applicant which may assisting in guiding amendment.
Making use of EPO work products on applications with EP equivalents – Standard Letter EL1D
12) In the case of domestic GB applications, EL1D is an AER for use when an examiner wishes to adopt the content of an examination report or a European search opinion, issued by the European Patent Office (EPO) on an EP equivalent, as a first examination report on a GB application. In a manner analogous to the use of EL1C to adopt the content of international work products, the aim of the EL1D is to reduce the amount of time spent performing a first examination on an application that has major issues. Examiners should note that EL1D is not appropriate for adopting international work products where the EPO was the International Searching Authority (ISA) - examiners should continue to use EL1C to adopt international work products in all circumstances.
13) Use of EL1D should be considered when the claims of the GB application and the EP equivalent have claims of substantially the same scope, the same or similar major issues, and, the examiner agrees with the findings of the EPO examiner. Care however needs to be taken when issues arise in areas where there is a divergence of practice between the IPO and the EPO e.g. the approach to inventive step.
14) Several pieces of information must be manually entered into an EL1D before issue . This information includes whether the EP application whose examination report is being adopted has been granted, the EP application’s publication number, the particular report(s) being adopted, the specific paragraph numbers of the report(s) being adopted, and the date of the report(s). All of this information is available via Espacenet. EL1D also contains a reminder for examiners to use clause RC31 to warn the applicant of potential conflict between the EP and GB applications. If an examiner decides to issue an EL1D, the EPO report(s) being adopted should be imported into the One IPO internal system using the CITE-NOPI document code. The documents should then be annotated with “Adopted as first exam report”.
15) When using EL1D, the citations present in the EP report being adopted will need to be manually added into the Citations tab on One IPO by the examiner before the report is issued.
18.101
A hearing is an opportunity for the applicant to put their case to a Hearing Officer (normally a Deputy Director) if they cannot reach agreement with an examiner about an objection raised during examination. The aim is to avoid multiple unproductive rounds of amendments and to hold the hearing before the compliance date. The purpose of the hearing checklist below, is to ensure that examiners follow best practice in relation to when to offer a hearing, and, the steps that need to be completed prior to sending any applications for a hearing.
[HEARING CHECKLIST]
When to offer the hearing? Y/N
- the length of the compliance period remaining?
- the number of times the objections have been made?
- the total number of exam reports (3rd round is a good rule of thumb)?
- is there genuine progress towards grant?
- is there a saving amendment?
- is there another way to proceed e.g. an interview?
Offering a hearing Y/N
- include relevant covering letter (EL35) and a paragraph in exam report
- include hearings leaflet if unrepresented applicant (see MoPP 18.79)
- senior examiners can offer hearings, but it is good practice to discuss the suitability of a hearing with your Group Head
After the offer of a hearing Y/N
- applicant accepts, declines, ignores the offer > write a pre-hearing report
- applicant withdraws the application or does not respond > do the next application
- are there outstanding procedural issues to deal with before the case is sent for the hearing?
Drafting the pre-hearing report
The purpose of the pre-hearing report is to brief the Hearing Officer and Applicant on the issues to be decided, the objections and reasons for them and other pertinent matters. A pre-hearing report must:
Y/N
- set out the issues to be decided by the Hearing Officer N.B. no new objections can be raised
- summarise the objections/examiner’s arguments
- set out full details of the objections (legal basis, citations, arguments) and any precedent cases to be referred to
- include full analysis using appropriate legal tests e.g. Windsurfing, Aerotel, as appropriate
- explain how you have construed/interpreted the claim(s)
- summarise the applicant’s arguments
- identify any issues being deferred
- are there minor objections outstanding?
- is the search complete?
- is the examination complete?
- include details of the compliance date and any extensions if relevant
- has your Group Head had the opportunity to review and comment on the draft?
Final steps
Y/N
- notify the hearings team to arrange a hearing
- issue the pre-hearing report (AFS letter)
- set the status of the Right to reflect that the pre-hearing report is available