Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C. Summary

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C. [2012] APO 79

Patent Application: 2011202602

Title:Liquid Concentrate/Extract Beverage Dispenser with Replaceable Concentrate/Extract Cartridge

Patent Applicant: Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C.

Delegate: E J Knock

Decision Date: 27 July 2012

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

Representation: Patent applicant: Norman Morcom, Morcom Pernat, Melbourne

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2011202602

Title:Liquid Concentrate/Extract Beverage Dispenser with Replaceable Concentrate/Extract Cartridge

Patent Applicant: Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2012

DECISION

I refuse the application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2011202602 was filed by Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C. as a divisional of application 2006311952 on 2 June 2011. An examination report issued on 16 March 2012, raising two objections. In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following note:

“Objection(s) 1 and 2 of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application 2006311952. 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 you intend 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 16 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

Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C. filed a patent application for a "Liquid Concentrate/Extract Beverage Dispenser with Replaceable Concentrate/Extract Cartridge" with the Australian Patent Office. The application was a divisional of an earlier application (2006311952) and was filed on 2 June 2011. An examination report issued on 16 March 2012 raised two objections, which were based on the same grounds that had previously been objected to in the examination of the parent application. The applicant was given two months to respond to the objections but did not respond. A hearing notice was issued allowing the applicant one month to file submissions addressing the grounds of objection. The applicant did not respond and no submissions were provided.

The Commissioner considered the objections raised in the examination report and agreed that they were appropriately raised. The applicant did not defend the application and provided no submissions disputing the objections. There were no proposals for amendments to overcome the objections. Given the circumstances, the Commissioner determined that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections. The application was subsequently refused.

The Commissioner issued a decision on 27 July 2012, refusing the patent application. The Commissioner noted that the objections raised were valid and that the applicant had not responded to them. The application was dismissed as there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections.

The final orders of the Commissioner were that the patent application was refused. The Commissioner noted that the applicant had not provided any submissions or proposed any amendments to overcome the objections. The Commissioner concluded that the application should be refused as there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections.

Intelligent Coffee Company, L.L.C.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established