As a part of its continued digitization/transparency drive the Patent Office has started hosting scanned copies of entire patent files on its IPAIRs system which can be accessed over here. The scanned copies now available on the website, includes all correspondence between the patent office and the patentee, all forms, abstracts and specifications filed by the patentee with the patent office. Image from here. This is basically an attempt to duplicate the features available on the website of the European Patent Office and in effect enables any person to carry out an online file inspection. The Indian effort however is still far from completion. As of now, there appears to be a great inconsistency in the information available from different patent offices. For example the Kolkata patent office is making available Form 27s or working statements while other patent offices are not doing so.
In order to access the particulars of any patent file, just key in the application number into the IPAIRs system to arrive at a webpage with several tabs including one of ‘view documents’. As a part of a trial run we have hosted the entire file wrapper, as sourced from the Patent Office website, of the infamous Ramkumar Patent on our website. The following documents of the Ramkumar patent can be accessed from below:
(i) Abstract
(ii) Claims
(vi) Form 2 – Duplicate
Of extreme relevance is the correspondence from the patent office to the Ramkumar and his replies. In the First Examination Report (FER) of the Patent Office dated 30th November, 2005 the examiner has raised very pertinent objections to Ramkumar’s patent application. Amongst these objections was the fact that the patent application did not adequately describe the invention it was claiming and that it was barred by Section 3(f) of the Patent Act, 1970. Ramkumar’s replies however are silent on any of the dozen plus objections raised by the Patent Office and yet the same examiner who raised objections went ahead to grant the patent. Why?
I think these “view document” is available from many days
S144 is the real stumbling block even now.till then even seasoned experts get trapped to forget the power of consideration of the patent granting authority.
truth matters not identity
This is really really stale news
The examiner had raised valid objections.As usual, his assistant controller would have waived them off and granted a patent.(Hope everyone is aware that only assistant controllers have the power to grant patents).In some cases “amenable” examiners are forced to waive objections themselves. They are rewarded in some form or the other for such obedience. This is usual in Indian patent office.
To increase the transparency, the patent office should also upload the minutes of any personal interviews/meetings with the inventors during the prosecution stage. I see USPTO and EPO examiners recording the minutes of the telephonic conversations, and uploading the same in the file history. What happens in these meetings/interview has always been intriguing with mostly the “intent of grant” made during this stage.
Also, a passing thought, the examiner’s intent to vehemently oppose a patent application can be questioned, when he has post grant and revocation proceedings to save him. I will be surprised to know if there is a mechanism at the IPO to evaluate examiner’s quality of examination (or I should say lack of it). With the current burden on the examiners to offload the huge backlog, I do not believe there is one.
BR,
KM
@Kshitij
what is an examiner going to gain by vehement opposition .nothing .he will continue to get what is due to him.even mr kurian has paid attention to this issue and taken correct step .pl see relevant portion in page 104 of the patent office manual. otherwise the Examiner could be insane..
you are equating discharge of duty with vehement opposition and love to believe in lack of quality.
recording interviews is worth emulating.
prashant
with complete regard to your selfless passion , i am afraid state that you have missed the legislative intent of sections 13-15.even if the examiner has erred , the patent act has created an inbuilt quality check for every office action.consideration and approval by someone at a higher level.this is unique to india .so the onus of grant or refusal lies not with the examiner
in your post on enercon or IPAB ,(just to name ),i could see a neutral approach ..some how i dont see the same here.
Irrespective of the veiled insinuations against me I think my analysis is quite free of bias. If you look at the correspondence that I have put up it is quite clear that only the examiner has granted the patent.
You seem to be a patent office insider – could you tell me about the practice in the patent office – do patent files have ‘file notings’ from the Controller which are not uploaded on the patent office website?
Cheers,
Prashant
As per Section.12 of the Indian Patents Act, an Examiner can only submit a report to the Controller (Assistant/Deputy Controller).It’s the duty of the Controller to convey a gist of this report to the Applicant(Section 14). So, as per the Act only a Controller has the power to communicate with the Applicant. But in the Indian Patent Office, Controllers did not want to be figured anywhere and wished to play safe using Examiners as scapegoats. Hence, Examiners were made to sign letters sent to applicants. There are known instances where even orders of refusal u/S.15 were signed by Examiners. The controllers would force them to sign saying that powers have been delegated even when it is explicit that only controllers have the power to refuse or require amended application under Section 15.In any case, all earlier office letters would be signed by examiners “For Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs”. The present CG realized this ploy by controllers to shirk responsibility and made them sign office communication themselves. Therefore if you observe letters transmitted after P.H Kurian took over, you will find that only controllers have signed letters.The notesheet in paper file or “remarks” column in the online examination module is confidential according to S.144.In some cases where there is an element of “suspicious” activity in an application, the notesheet or part of it goes “missing and untraceable”. But now with the advent of the online examination system, one hopes that Examiners are no longer made cannon-fodder.
Yes Prashant. Earlier files used to have notesheets (file notings). The procedure is as follows.Examiner makes a report to Assistant/Deputy Controller. Controller signs on notesheet (controller is supposed to send letter himself after signing) and makes examiner send a letter on his behalf(this explains why examiners have always signed with “for assistant controller of patents & designs” in their letters).after a reply from applicant examiner may raise new objections or maintain earlier objections on notesheet.this may or may not be communicated to the applicant as the controller can simply write “waived off”, “passed” or even “granted” in the notesheet and grant a patent. This practice of Examiners maintaining objections and controllers wantonly overlooking them and granting patents came to PH Kurian’s notice which made him include this in the latest Patent Manual “If the Controller differs with the report of the Examiner at any stage of the Examination and Grant Process, he shall record the reasons for such disagreement in the file”(see page 100).The use of online module for examination also brings in some relief as examiners can record their observations in the remarks column which cannot go “missing”.
Daer Anon,
Excellent points. I had covered this topic a few months ago: http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-it-lawful-for-examiners-to-grant.html
Now, can you tell me whether it is possible for anybody to access these file-notings? Does the Controller actually sign the file notings – will I find signatures on the file notings if look for one?
Cheers,
Prashant
for your 1st q, highcourt permission is needed.
the latter is self explanatory. ,were there signatures in file notings you received here.http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/03/dipp-responds-to-rti-queries-on-ipab.html
Actually no permission is required to access file notings. The only thing confidential as per S. 144 of the Patent Act is the Examiner’s Report.
And if the Controller is signing on the file notings then in that case he is taking responsiblity for the file regardless of who send out the final letter.
Prashant
“And if the Controller is signing on the file notings then in that case he is taking responsiblity for the file regardless of who send out the final letter”.
Ok then, hereafter kindly mention that it is the controller who has granted the patent and not the examiner.
“Actually no permission is required to access file notings. The only thing confidential as per S. 144 of the Patent Act is the Examiner’s Report”.
It would be indeed a great achievement if you are able to access file notings.
Good Luck!
our controllers have no other works except putting their signs on the fer made by the examiners.then they take printout and sent to applicant. for this job only they are given more salaray than other.