IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Futurelogic, Inc. [2012] APO 100
Patent Application: 2012201355
Title:Distributed promotional coupon system with real-time activity monitoring
Patent Applicant: Futurelogic, Inc.
Delegate: E J Knock
Decision Date: 11 September 2012
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – case management of divisional applications – no response by applicant – application refused
Representation: Patent applicant: Ernest Graf, Fisher Adams Kelly, Brisbane
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2012201355
Title:Distributed promotional coupon system with real-time activity monitoring
Patent Applicant: Futurelogic, Inc.
Date of Decision: 11 September 2012
DECISION
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Patent application 2012201355 was filed by Futurelogic, Inc. as a divisional of application 2007208281 on 7 March 2012. An examination report issued on 11 May 2012, raising three objections. In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following note:
“Objection(s) 1-4 [sic] of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application 2007208281. 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 above."
As no reply was received, the Commissioner issued a hearing notice in the following terms:
"The examination report of 11 May 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
- AGLC
- Futurelogic, Inc. [2012] APO 100
- Case
- [2012] APO 100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the delegate was whether the application should be refused or granted, considering the objections raised in the examination report and the applicant's failure to respond. The Commissioner's approach to managing divisional applications involved giving the applicant an opportunity to address the objections and amend the application if necessary. The applicant did not take advantage of this opportunity, and therefore, the delegate was left to consider the objections without any defence from the applicant. The delegate concluded that the objections were valid and that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming them, leading to the decision to refuse the application.
The delegate reviewed the examination report and found that the objections raised were valid and applicable to the divisional application. The applicant did not submit any responses or amendments to the application, and therefore, the delegate found that the application did not meet the requirements for patentability. The delegate noted that the applicant had been given ample opportunity to respond to the objections and make amendments, but had chosen not to do so. As a result, the delegate concluded that the application should be refused.
The Australian Patent Office refused patent application 2012201355 for a distributed promotional coupon system with real-time activity monitoring by Futurelogic, Inc. The decision was based on the valid objections raised in the examination report, which the applicant did not address or attempt to overcome. The delegate found that the application did not meet the requirements for patentability and that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections. The refusal of the application means that Futurelogic, Inc. will not be granted a patent for the described invention.
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.