Quality

Quality Management at IP Australia

Quality Policy

1.1 International Searching

1.1.3 Search Allocation and Preliminary Classification

1.1.4 Unity of Invention

1.1.5 Abstract and Title

1.1.7.1 Claim Interpretation According to the PCT Guidelines

1.1.7.2 Broad Claims

1.1.8 Search Strategy

1.1.12 Search Report and Notification Form Completion

1.1.19 Annexes

1.2 International Type Searching

1.3 International Examination

1.3.4 Top-up Search

1.3.5 First IPE action

1.3.6 Response to Opinion

1.3.9 General Considerations

1.3.10 Annexes

Annex A Sub-Annexes

1.4 Fiji Applications

1.5 Thai Applications

1.6 WIPO Searches

2. National

2.1 General Approach to Examination

2.1.7 Citations

2.1.9.4 FERs and Report Formulation

Annex A - Open Patent Services (OPS) FER Process

2.2 Other Examination Considerations

2.2.8 Summary of IP Reform Changes

2.3 Definitions

2.4 Novelty

2.4.4 Relevant Prior Art

2.4.5 Construing the Citation

2.4.6 Level of Disclosure Required

2.4.12 Novelty - Some Specific Examples

2.4.12.1 Chemical Compounds

2.4.12.2 Range of Variables

2.4.12.2.1 Examples Needed for Clear and Unmistakable Directions

2.5 Inventive Step

2.5.1 Overview

2.5.2 Identifying the Relevant Facts

2.5.2.1 Common General Knowledge

2.5.3 Tests for Inventive Step

2.5.3.4 Special Inducements, Obvious Selections

2.5.3.4.1 Examples of Special Inducement

2.5.3.10 Indicators of Inventive Step

2.5.4 Inventive Step - Some Specific Examples

2.5.4.1 Chemical Situations

2.6 Applicants and Nominated Persons, Patent Requests, Entitlement

2.6.1 Applicants and Nominated Persons

2.6.2 Patent Requests

2.6.3 Entitlement

2.6.4 Changing the Applicant or Nominated Person

2.7 Micro-Organisms and Other Life Forms

2.7.3 The Budapest Treaty

2.7.4 The Deposit Requirements

2.7.4.3 Deposit Receipt and Notice of Entitlement to Rely on Deposit

2.7.4.3.1 Contents of the Receipt

2.7.5 Amendments to Insert Section 6(c) Information and Extensions of Time Therefor

2.7.6 Release of a Sample of Deposit

2.7.7 Deposit Requirements Cease to be Satisfied

Annexes

2.8 Abstracts

2.9 Patentability Issues

2.9.2.17 New Uses

2.9.2.18 Ethics and Social Policy

2.9.3 Other Issues

2.9.3.4.1A Assessing the Claims for Lack of Usefulness

2.9.3.5 Human Beings and Biological Processes for Their Generation

2.9.3.5.1 Stem Cells

2.9 Annex A - History of Manner of Manufacture

2.10 Divisional Applications (Sections 79B and 79C)

2.10.9.1 Supervision of Divisional Applications with Great Grandparent or Earlier Ancestors

2.11 Section 40 - Specifications

2.11.2.1 The Addressee

2.11.2.2 Rules of Construction

2.11.2.3 Construction of Claims

2.11.2.4 What is the Invention?

2.11.2.4A What is the Invention?

2.11.3 Full Description, Best Method

2.11.3A Clear Enough and Complete Enough Disclosure

2.11.7A Support for the Claims

2.11.7.1A Principles for Examination

2.11.7.1.1A Contribution to the Art

2.11.9.1 Consistency of Title in the Documents

2.12 Priority Dates and Filing Dates

2.12.1 Priority Dates

2.12.2 Filing Dates

2.13 Examination

2.13.5 Stringency of Tests During Examination

2.13.15.5 Opinion

Annexes

2.18 Multiple Applications (Sections 64(2) and 101B)

2.19 Patents of Addition (Chapter 7)

2.19.1 Applications for Patents of Addition

2.19.2 Examination Procedure

2.20 National Phase Applications

2.20.1 Introduction

2.20.4 Complete Specification in a Foreign Language

2.20.5 Priority Considerations

2.20.10.1 Determining Whether Amendments Made Under Articles and Rules of the PCT are Considered During Examination

2.21 Convention Applications

2.21.3 Making Convention Applications

2.22 Re-Examination

2.22.4 Re-Examination Consideration

2.22.5 Re-Examination Report

2.22.6 Completion of Re-Examination Process

2.22.9 Revocation of Patent Following Re-examination

2.23 Amendments

2.23.3 Formalities

2.23.4 Fees

2.23.5 Granting Leave to Amend/Allowing the Amendments

2.23.8A Allowability Under Section 102(1)

2.23.9 Allowability Under Section 102(2) etc

2.23.10 "Clerical Error" and "Obvious Mistake"

2.23.11 Amendments After the Grant of a Patent

2.23.12 Other Allowability Issues Concerning Amendments to Complete Specifications

2.23.13 Amendment of a Patent Request or of Other Filed Documents

2.23.14 Amendments During Section 59 Opposition and Section 101M Opposition Proceedings

2.23.15 Opposition to Amendments

2.24 Requesting and Directing Examination, Withdrawal, Lapsing, Extension of Term

2.24.1 Requesting and Directing Examination

2.24.2 Withdrawal of Applications (Section 141, Regulation 13.1A)

2.24.2.2.1 Reversing Withdrawal of an Application

2.24.3 Lapsing of an Application

2.25 The Register of Patents (Chapter 19)

2.26 Employees, Delegations, Administration

2.26.1 Restrictions on Patent Office Staff (Sections 182-185)

2.26.4.1 Statutory Provisions

2.26.4.2 Types of Delegations Made by the Commissioner

2.26.5 Secret Cases

2.27 Payment of Fees (Section 227)

2.28 Transitional and Savings Provisions

2.29 Formalities and Forms

2.30 Patent Deed

2.30.1 Sealing of Duplicate Patent

2.31 Innovation Patents

2.31.1 Features of the System

2.31.2 Types of Innovation Patent Application

2.31.3 Formalities Check for Innovation Patents

2.31.4 Examination

2.31.4.5.4A Innovative Step

3. Oppositions, Disputes and Extensions

3.2.1 Section 59 - Opposition to Grant of a Standard Patent

3.2.2 Section 101M - Opposition to an Innovation Patent

3.2.3 Section 75(1) - Opposition to an Extension of Term of a Pharmaceutical Patent

3.2.4 Section 104(4) - Opposition to a Request to Amend a Filed Document

3.2.5 Section 223(6) - Opposition to an Extension of Time under Subsection 223(2) or 223(2A)

3.2.6 Reg 22.21(4) - Opposition to Grant of a Licence

3.2.7 Sections 17 & 32 - Disputes Between Applicants and Co-Owners

3.2.8 Entitlement - Sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 191A

3.3 Directions

3.3.1 Directions in Opposition Proceedings

3.3.2 Directions that an Application Proceed in Different Name(s) - Section 113

3.4 Opposition Documents - Requirements and Amendments

3.5 Evidence

3.5.1 Presentation of Evidence

3.5.3.1 Further Evidence

3.6 Production of Documents, Summonsing Witnesses

3.7 Withdrawal and Dismissal of an Opposition

3.7.1 Withdrawal of an Opposition

3.7.2 Dismissal of an Opposition

3.7.3 Withdrawal of an Opposed Application

3.8 Hearings and Decisions

3.8.1 Setting Down Hearings

3.8.2 Hearings Procedure

3.8.3 Ex Parte Hearings

3.8.4 Natural Justice and Bias

3.8.5 Principles of Conduct

3.8.6 Decisions

3.8.9 Quality

3.8.10 Appointment of Hearing Officers and Assistant Hearing Officers, Hearing Officer Standards Panel, Hearing Officer Delegations

3.9 Costs

3.10 The Register of Patents

3.10.3 Amendment of the Register

3.11 Extensions of Time and Restoration of the Right of Priority

3.11.1 Extensions of Time - Section 223

3.11.1.3 Subsection 223(2) - Error or Omission and Circumstances Beyond Control

3.11.1.4 Subsection 223(2A) - Despite Due Care

3.11.1.4.1 Filing a Request under Subsection 223(2A)

3.11.2 Extensions of Time - Reg 5.9

3.11.2.2.1 Application of Regulation 5.9

3.11.3 Extensions of Time - Reg 5.10 (as in force immediately before 15 April 2013)

3.11.4 Restoration of the Right of Priority under the PCT

3.12 Extension of Term of Standard Patents Relating to Pharmaceutical Substances

3.12.1 Section 70 Considerations

3.12.2 Applying for an Extension of Term

3.12.3 Processing an Application for an Extension of Term

3.12.3.3.1 Renewal Fees

3.12.3.4 Refusal of Application for Extension of Term

3.13 Documents not OPI - Orders for Inspection

3.14 Appeals, AAT and Judicial Review, Other Court Actions Involving the Commissioner, Section 105 Amendments

3.15 Computerised Decisions

4.1 Searching

4.1.4 Development of the Search Strategy

4.1.4.3 Search Area

4.1.4.3.3 Non-Patent Literature

4.1.5 Conducting the Search

2.9.3.4.1.1A Does the Invention Achieve the Promised Benefit?

Date Published 16 Dec 2020

Note: The information in this part only applies to:

standard patent applications with an examination request filed on or after 15 April 2013.
innovation patents with an examination request filed on or after 15 April 2013.
innovation patents where the Commissioner had not decided before 15 April 2013 to examine the patent.

For all other standard patent applications/innovation patents, see 2.9.3.4 Useful (Utility).

The test for determining whether a claimed invention achieves the promised benefit is to ask:

Does the invention do what it is intended by the [applicant or] patentee to do and is the end result itself useful?

“‘Useful for what?’ is a question which must always be asked, and the answer must be useful for the purposes indicated by the [applicant or] patentee.”

This does not mean that an invention must equate to a commercial product in order to be useful, rather it must achieve the use promised by the patentee in the specification. (Lane Fox v Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Co (1892) 9 RPC 413 at 417 approved by the High Court in Advanced Building v Ramset [1998] HCA 19 at [24]). In particular, the promised benefit or useful purpose of the claimed invention will often be found in the description.

When construing the claims for the purposes of usefulness (or for any other purpose), they must be construed from the perspective of a skilled addressee in a commonsense way, and not in such a way that the skilled addressee would appreciate would lead to an absurd or unworkable result (see 2.11.5 Claims are Clear and 2.11.2.2.6 Reject the Absurd). A specification should not be construed in a way that any sensible person would appreciate would lead to unworkability when on a proper construction it could be given a more limited meaning. (Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1961] HCA 91 at [20]; William WM Wrigley Junior Company v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1035 at [138]).

However, if a claim, properly construed, includes within its scope means that will not produce the desired result, even if a skilled addressee would recognise which means to avoid, then the claim will lack usefulness. That is, everything falling within the scope of a claim must be useful, otherwise the claim will fail for inutility (Norton and Gregory Limited v Jacobs (1937) 54 RPC 271 at 276 cited by the High Court in Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1961] HCA 91 at [20]; and Martin Engineering Co and Another v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd and Others [1989] FCA 64 at [23]-[24]).

Any objection that the claimed invention is not useful should include a reasoned explanation of why the claimed invention does not achieve the promised benefit and/or why the specification does not disclose a specific, substantial and/or credible use for the claimed invention.

Back to top