Timeline for Just got an extended European search report with Unity rejection, how can I do to argue with the Examiner?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 10, 2017 at 8:45 | vote | accept | J. Gong | ||
May 10, 2017 at 7:37 | comment | added | chempatent1981 | One more issue: if this is the opinion accompanying a SUPPLEMENTARY European Search Report, then it's a PCT application entering the EP phase, where the ISA was not the EPO. And if EPO was not the ISA, the applicant is probably from a non-EPC contracting state and the application probably needs a qualified representative. | |
May 10, 2017 at 7:35 | answer | added | chempatent1981 | timeline score: 2 | |
May 10, 2017 at 3:39 | comment | added | Maca | Just to confirm: did you previously receive an invitation to pay additional search fees, and then decide not to pay for claims 13-19? Because that makes quite a substantial difference in your options. | |
May 10, 2017 at 3:02 | comment | added | J. Gong | Thank you all. I've quoted some of the explanations from the EESR. Hope it be helpful. | |
May 10, 2017 at 3:01 | history | edited | J. Gong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
supplementary
|
May 9, 2017 at 20:53 | history | edited | user18033 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
May 9, 2017 at 12:05 | comment | added | chempatent1981 | You received an extended european search report so I assume it is an EP direct application and not a PCT entering the EP phase. Did you receive a communication pursuant to Rule 64 inviting you to pay further search fees? It is very odd that the reason provided for non-compliance with Article 82 is non-inventiveness (Article 56). Are you sure this is exactly what it reads? I agree with the other two comments, a short extract from it would help understand what the communication actually asks you to do. | |
May 9, 2017 at 10:41 | comment | added | Maca | In principle, if you have two mutually exclusive claims which are dependent on the same independent claim, and that independent claim lacks an inventive step, then the dependent claims lack unity with respect to each other. But I have never seen an examiner bother raising that, since it's a minor consequence, rather than something needing to be explicitly dealt with. So there surely must be something more than merely the independent claim lacking an inventive step. So I agree with @DonQuiKong: the EESR (or an extract from it) would assist mightily. | |
May 9, 2017 at 8:58 | comment | added | user18033 | Could you give a little more information? Either the full report if it's already published or at least some of the explanations without disclosing anything crucial? I'm not sure here if every claim is rejected by 56 EPC and then by 82 EPC too so essentially 56 EPC is what to deal with first or by 82 EPC with some quoting of 56 EPC only. | |
May 9, 2017 at 8:43 | history | asked | J. Gong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |