Osmose New Zealand Summary

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Osmose New Zealand [2012] APO 29

Patent Application: 2010226067
Title:Wood impregnation

Patent Applicant: Osmose New Zealand

Delegate: E J Knock

Decision Date: 22 March 2012

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

Representation: Patent applicant: Andrew Baker, A J Park, Auckland

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2010226067

Title:Wood impregnation

Patent Applicant: Osmose New Zealand

Date of Decision: 22 March 2012

DECISION

I refuse the application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2010226067 was filed by Osmose New Zealand as a divisional of application 2006302741 on 30 September 2010. An examination report issued on 24 October 2011, raising seven objections. In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following note:

“Objection(s) 2-4 pertaining to claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-21, 24-26, 28-35, 38, 40, 41 and 45-47, of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application 2006302741 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 24 October 2011 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

Osmose New Zealand, the patent applicant, filed a divisional patent application in relation to a wood impregnation process. The application was subject to an examination report which raised seven objections. Despite the opportunity to respond to these objections, the applicant did not engage with the process and subsequently did not file any submissions. The delegate, E J Knock, was tasked with determining whether the application should be refused or if amendment was possible.

The legal issue before the court was whether the patent application should be refused due to the applicant's failure to respond to objections and provide submissions. The court had to consider the case management approach for divisional applications and whether the applicant had taken reasonable steps to address the objections raised in the examination report.

The delegate examined the examiner's report and noted the applicant's inaction. The applicant had not provided any submissions or proposed amendments to overcome the objections. The delegate concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections given their lack of engagement with the process. Therefore, the application was refused.

The final order was that the patent application 2010226067 was refused by the delegate, E J Knock, on the basis that the applicant failed to respond to the objections raised in the examination report and did not provide any submissions or proposed amendments to overcome these objections.

Osmose New Zealand

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established