1860 International Preliminary Examination Procedure [R-01.2024]

I. EXAMINATION PROCEDURE

The international preliminary examination is to be carried out in accordance with PCT Article 34 and PCT Rule 66. After the demand is checked for compliance with PCT Rules 53 - 55, 57 and 58, the first step of the examiner is to study the description, the drawings (if any), the claims of the international application, the documents describing the prior art as cited in the international search report, and the written opinion established by the International Searching Authority. Furthermore, the examiner shall search at least to the point of bringing the previous search up to date and any new prior art discovered and applied must be made of record. See PCT Rule 66.1ter.

A further written opinion is usually not mandatory where the written opinion of the International Searching Authority is treated as the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority. The United States International Preliminary Examining Authority will treat any written opinion of the International Searching Authority established by the USPTO, EPO, KIPO, IP Australia, ILPO, JPO, or IPOS as the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

Assuming the written opinion of the International Searching Authority is treated as the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, as noted above, no further written opinion need be issued before the international preliminary examination report, even if there are objections outstanding. The examiner takes into consideration any comments or amendments made by the applicant when establishing the international preliminary examination report.

II. FURTHER WRITTEN OPINION SHOULD BE ISSUED

A further written opinion should be prepared by the examiner if applicant files a response which includes a persuasive argument that the written opinion issued by the International Searching Authority was improper because of a negative opinion with respect to a lack of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) or industrial applicability as described in PCT Article 33(2) - (4); and which results in the examiner considering any of the claims to lack novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) or industrial applicability as described in PCT Article 33(2) - (4) based on new art not necessitated by any amendment.

Any further written opinion established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority should set forth, as applicable:

• (A) Any defects in the international application as described in PCT Article 34(4) concerning subject matter which is not required to be examined or which is unclear or inadequately supported;
• (B) Any negative findings with respect to any of the claims because of a lack of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) or industrial applicability as described in PCT Article 33(2) - (4);
• (C) Any defects in the form or contents of the international application;
• (D) Any finding by the examiner that an amendment goes beyond the disclosure in the international application as originally filed;
• (E) Any observation which the examiner wishes to make on the clarity of the claims, the description, the drawings or to the question whether the claims are fully supported by the description (PCT Rule 66.2);
• (F) Any decision by the examiner not to carry out the international preliminary examination on a claim for which no international search report was issued; or
• (G) If the examiner considers that no acceptable nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing is available in a form that would allow a meaningful international preliminary examination to be carried out.

The further written opinion is prepared on Form PCT/IPEA/408 to notify applicant of the defects found in the international application. The examiner is further required to fully state the reasons for the opinion (PCT Rule 66.2(b)) and invite a written reply, with amendments where appropriate (PCT Rule 66.2(c)), normally setting a 2 month time limit for the reply.

The applicant may reply to the invitation by making amendments or, if applicant disagrees with the opinion of the examiner, by submitting arguments, as the case may be, or both.

The U.S. Rules of Practice pertaining to international preliminary examination of international applications permit a second written opinion in those cases where sufficient time is available. Normally only one written opinion will be issued. Any reply received after the expiration of the set time limit will not normally be considered in preparing the international preliminary examination report. In situations, however, where the examiner has requested an amendment or where a later amendment places the application in better condition for examination, the amendment may be considered by the examiner.

If the applicant does not reply to any further written opinion established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority within the set time period, the international preliminary examination report will be prepared after expiration of the time limit plus sufficient time to have any reply clear the Mail Center.

[top]