Ten suggestions for the better functioning of the IPOs website/workings
Don’t get us wrong-we love our IPO but there are at least few things that the IPO can do better in order to make the site more user friendly and content a bit more easily accessible to the users.
In the software world, Linus’ law states that “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Therefore, this post is written to provide constructive feedback for our patent office.
The suggestions are divided into two distinct categories-style and substance.
Because a large number of images are used for showing the current processes at the IPO, the post can be accessed in its entirety here (Click on the PDF file to view or download).
Substance
Given that our patent office has four independent offices working under the office of the Controller General, it would be expected that the quality of the work is uniform/same or at least similar across all branches. However, it is not the case. We have quite a few issues that we highlight and provide specific suggestions for overcoming the problems.
1. The numbering scheme at our patent office is so unique that practitioners avoid using the numbers provided by our IPO and prefer to identify an application by either its European or US counterparts numbers.
Consider as an example, the application number 1576/DELNP/2005 and 1576/DEL/2005. One would think that both these numbers refer to the same case. But, these numbers refer to two distinct applications/inventions/assignees.
Currently, application numbers are named as per the patent office location. This scheme causes problems while searching the international applications. Any practitioner who has searched for an international family of related patent applications, can vouch for the fact that the numbers issued by our patent office are simply inconsistent and extremely confusing.
A simple solution to overcome this problem would be to convert the office into numeric format and keep the entire application number in numeric format. For example, consider the tables below where each city is assigned a code, and each application type (provisional or non-provisional) is assigned another series code, and whether an application is NP or a regular application is assigned a different code.
|
OFFICE
|
CODE
|
|
|
11
|
|
MUM
|
22
|
|
KOL
|
33
|
|
CHE
|
44
|
|
Application Type
|
|
|
Provisional
|
Non-Provisional
|
|
01
|
51
|
|
National Phase (NP)
|
Other
|
|
10
|
01
|
The application type rolls over depending upon a total number of applications filed in the series. For example, if 999,999 provisional applications are filed, then the provisional series rolls over to 02. It is up to the patent office to link up the series code with the year. By using such a code, the numbering scheme is still unique that allows easy identification of an application. One possible example is shown below.
|
NP/P Series
|
NP/P
Series
|
Patent Office
|
N
|
U
|
M
|
B
|
E
|
R
|
N
|
P
|
|
|
5
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
7
|
6
|
1
|
0
|
2. At the IPO, there is no common guideline regarding the content of an office action. An action issued at the IPO almost never specifies a set of claims that fail under a particular section or Rule. In the example below, objections 3 and 4 have got no basis unless specified in detail. The example below also fails to state which claims fail section 3(k).
In order to avoid such issues, one suggestion is to specify why each claim fails a Rule or section. A general practice is to object or reject the independent claim because dependant claims fall with the independent claim.
As an example, general practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) at the USPTO is to decide each application against an examiner rejection based upon the independent claims.
Additionally, a reason why a claim (and not the application) fails a test must be articulated by the Examiner in an office action.
In the example actions shown here, the action first refers to the substantive section and then spells it. It then states that a particular claim fails the substantive section and the reason for it. To help the Examiner, the IPO too can have a template form that includes such details.
Style:
1. Use of Frames:
The IPOs website uses frames. The use of HTML Frames has its advantages but major disadvantages of using frames are: developer (read patent office) must keep track of more HTML documents, they disrupt the flow of the website and it is difficult to anticipate where a page may land when clicked, it is extremely difficult to print the entire page.
A good idea might be to use standard web practices to entirely avoid the problems associated with frames. These standard practices/guidelines for web development are issued by either World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/) or by our very own National Informatics Center (NIC) http://web.guidelines.gov.in/ .
2. Use of flashing images-The less said about it the better- Good practice is to avoid flashing GIFs. See http://web.guidelines.gov.in/tips.php
3. Avoid suggesting a preferred browser to the user.
The guidelines from NIC and W3C ensure that a website is equally accessible from any browser and any device (like smart-phones).
4. Update information regularly to avoid serving stale information to the users- Suggestion is to use specific web pages and avoid frames.
5. Uniformity: The Chennai patent office issues the Controllers decision in an image format of a Controller’s decision whereas the other three issue Controller’s decisions that are text extractible. Image formats are much larger in size that normal text files. A good practice is to post decision in XML or in PDF text formats. Therefore, all decisions from the Controller must be accessible in extractible PDF format. A document can be electronically signed and this obviates the need for a Controller to physically sign each document.
Additionally given that our patent office plans to put up entire file histories for all published application and patents online, uniformity in putting up content would go a long way in ensuring that all files are easily uploaded and accessible. Generally it is a good practice to provide programmatic access to data. For example, the data in a file may be digitized and viewed in a web browser. But if the data itself is of multiple formats (like an image of a document vs. a document), it becomes extremely difficult and expensive to provide such programmatic access.
Similarly, all notices that are put on the patent office web-site need not be an image format. It could be a PDF copy with an electronic signature or a PDF document with only the physical signature of the Controller as an electronic signature.
To see the entirety of this post with images, please click here.
Hello Rajiv,
Yes this is a very critical analysis of the IPO website. I agree with the shortcomings you have highlighted and the corresponding suggestions that you have made.
But i believe, with the revamping going on on the functioning of IPO and also that of the patent searching system (by introduction of iPAIRS), gradually the user-friendliness of the website would also be increased. Hope this happens soon, and i am sure your suggestions would be quite helpful in this regard.
Regards,
Meeta Sunil
This is very good suggestion.
My experience has never been good searching Indian patent office database and I think I am not alone!! I have seen better databases designed by computer science undergraduates as part of their project work. I would request IPO to study the USPTO PAIR system, WIPO patentscope database, and AusPat (patent search facility of Australian patent office). Auspat in particular is an excellent example where Web 2.0 technology has been put to use. You might like to experience this at the url http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/structuredSearchPage.do#
Click the various links on this page, to have a flavour of what it is? If you have time make few searches and experience yourself how interactive it is!!
This is an excellent analysis full of useful suggestions. In particular, it would go a long way toward raising the quality of Indian patents if the objections to claims are made specific in the manner followed internationally.
There also has to be an attitudinal change in information sharing by the patent office. For example, the annual report for 2009 is not text searchable and could not even be OCRd! (91 pages, 36 MB)
Hi Meeta,
I prepared this post with the view that at least some of the suggestions made, may be adopted by the IPO. And the IPO has already adopted one of the suggestion regarding the Controller’s decisions. These decisions are now available in a “occurs between” date format.
Dear Rajeev
This kind of suggestions rather similar suggestions were given to the then CGPDTM long back but no decision could be taken by them.Let us hope for the best this time
Rajiv can be a very good website developer –seems he has a very good potential !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but he should write this directly to their best friend in IPO to get immediate result !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some people even wants to get data easily from AR and place in 5 star hotel presentation with biggie lunch –to get applause –what a presentation yaar !! kamaal kar diya aapne !!!!!!!
Carry on boyes —after all you also need something to sell !!!!!!!!!!
@Rajiv, suggestions are really good enough in regard to the constructional features of the website. However, I must let you know 1 fact in respect of your following comments:
“…quality of the work is uniform/same or at least similar across all branches”!
Who is expected to maintain such “quality of work”? The management? I am sorry Rajiv! One should be aware of the fact that the management is so poor and comprise of such oldies who do not care of “qualities”. If you meet such oldies, you will understand the reality of the fact. How can we expect that the management, who do not have any research background, will deliver such a consistent examination report?
Regarding the objection on claims, I must let you know that IPO management insist upon the examiners to copy and paste ISA report. I am afraid that the system has got several lacuna which is difficult to remove in very near future. The personal interests of the management and some officials hinder the betterment of the organization.