DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd

Case [2012] APO 83


IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd [2012] APO 83

Patent Application:                   2011205055

Title:High-resolution tracking of industrial process materials using trace incorporation of luminescent markers

Patent Applicant:  DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd

Delegate:  E J Knock

Decision Date:  7 August 2012

Catchwords:  PATENTS – examiner objection – case management of divisional applications – no response by applicant – application refused

Representation:  Patent applicant:  Keith Leslie, Davies Collison Cave, Melbourne

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:                   2011205055   

Title:High-resolution tracking of industrial process materials using trace incorporation of luminescent markers

Patent Applicant:  DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd

Date of Decision:  7 August 2012

DECISION

I refuse the application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2011205055 was filed by DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd as a divisional of application 2006246300 on 28 July 2011.  An examination report issued on 19 March 2012, raising five objections.  In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following note:

“Objection(s) of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application 2006246300.  Please note that if a response overcoming this objection is not filed within two months of the date of this report the Commissioner will consider whether to direct amendment of the application under section 107 or proceed to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Act. If intending to proceed under either of these provisions the Commissioner will notify you in writing and indicate the time and place you may be heard on the matter. In deciding the matter the Commissioner will consider all possible grounds of objection to the application not only those identified below.

As no reply was received, the Commissioner issued a hearing notice in the following terms:

"The examination report of 19 March 2012 raised an objection(s) equivalent to that in the parent application.  In line with our approach to case management of divisionals, you were given two months to respond to that report.  As no response has been received, the matter will now be set for hearing.

I believe that it is possible to hear this matter on the basis of written submissions, so I allow you one (1) month from the date of this letter to file any submissions you wish.  Your submissions should address the ground(s) of objection identified in the examination report.  Once your submissions have been received, or alternatively if no submissions are received, the matter will be passed to a hearing officer to issue a written decision.  Please note that it is possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment.

Alternatively, if you file amendments overcoming the objection(s) within this period, the Commissioner will not proceed with the hearing.  However, if the amendments do not fully overcome the objection(s), you will be advised of this fact and the hearing may continue as above."

The applicant has not provided any submissions.

The objection

I have reviewed the examiner's report, and I agree that there are appropriately raised objections.  The applicant has chosen not to defend the application.  They have provided no submissions disputing the objections, and have not proposed any amendment to attempt to overcome the objections.  In these circumstances there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections.  The application should be refused.

E J Knock
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Details
AGLC
DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd [2012] APO 83
Case
[2012] APO 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DataTraceDNA Pty Ltd applied for a patent for a method of high-resolution tracking of industrial process materials using trace incorporation of luminescent markers. The application was filed as a divisional application of an earlier application. The Commissioner issued an examination report raising objections to the application, noting that the objections were based on the same grounds as those raised in the examination of the parent application. The Commissioner gave the applicant two months to respond to the objections, but the applicant did not respond within the given time. The Commissioner then issued a hearing notice, allowing the applicant one month to file submissions addressing the grounds of objection. However, the applicant did not file any submissions, and the matter was referred to a hearing officer for a written decision.

The legal issues in this case were whether the objections raised in the examination report were appropriately raised and whether the applicant had provided any submissions disputing the objections. The Commissioner found that the objections were appropriately raised and that the applicant had not provided any submissions disputing the objections. The Commissioner also found that the applicant had not proposed any amendments to overcome the objections.

The Commissioner decided that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections, and the application should be refused. The Commissioner noted that the applicant had chosen not to defend the application and had not proposed any amendments to overcome the objections. In these circumstances, the application should be refused.

The Commissioner refused the application for a patent for a method of high-resolution tracking of industrial process materials using trace incorporation of luminescent markers. The Commissioner found that the objections raised in the examination report were appropriately raised and that the applicant had not provided any submissions disputing the objections. The Commissioner also found that the applicant had not proposed any amendments to overcome the objections. The Commissioner concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections and that the application should be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.