IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] APO 20
Patent Application: 2019284145
Title:Waste Management and Processing System
Patent Applicant: RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Delegate: R Subbarayan
Decision Date: 25 March 2022
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 18 October 2021
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – manner of manufacture – inventive step – manner of manner objection cannot be maintained – lack of inventive step objection cannot be maintained – application remitted back to examination for further searching – application to proceed to acceptance if no new prior art found
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Wallington-Dummer
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2019284145
Title:Waste Management and Processing System
Patent Applicant: RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 25 March 2022
DECISION
The invention of the amended claims is for a manner of manufacture and the examiner’s objection under this ground cannot be maintained.
The invention of the amended claims does not lack an inventive step in light of the CGK and combined disclosure of prior art documents D1 and D2 and this objection also cannot be maintained in its current state.
I refer the application back to the examination section to further investigate whether the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates is disclosed in any other prior art document and if so whether a revised inventive step objection is appropriate. If not, the application should proceed to acceptance.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
Patent application 2019284145 in the name of RYW Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant) was filed on 30 December 2019 and claims an earlier priority date of 22 August 2019. The applicant requested expedited examination of the application on 30 December 2019.
A first examination report was issued on 30 March 2020 with objections on the grounds of unity of invention, manner of manufacture, clarity, support and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 4 August 2020 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
A second examination report was issued on 28 August 2020 with objections on the grounds of unity, manner of manufacture, support, disclosure, clarity and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 12 January 2021 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
A third examination report was issued on 3 February 2021 with objections on the grounds of manner of manufacture, support and novelty.
The applicant responded on 26 March 2021 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
On 30 March 2021 which was the final date for the acceptance of the application, the applicant filed a request under section 223(2)(b) for an extension of time of 3 months to gain acceptance on the basis of the impact of COVID-19. This request was allowed on 31 May 2021 and the applicant advised accordingly.
A fourth examination report was issued on 20 April 2021 with objections on the grounds of allowability of amendments, manner of manufacture, clarity and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 20 May 2021 and 15 June 2020 with proposed…
Continue reading RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] APO 20
- Case
- [2022] APO 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the examiner's objections were justified. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the manner of manufacture claimed in the patent application was indeed inventive, and whether the invention lacked an inventive step when considering the prior art. The court also needed to determine whether the patent examiner had conducted a thorough search of the prior art.
The court found that the examiner's objection regarding the manner of manufacture was unfounded, as the invention did indeed involve a novel manner of manufacture. The court also found that the invention did not lack an inventive step, as it was not obvious in light of the prior art. However, the court did find that the examiner had not conducted a thorough enough search of the prior art, and that further investigation was needed to determine whether the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates was disclosed in any other prior art documents. The court remitted the application back to the examination section for further investigation, and directed that if no new prior art was found, the application should proceed to acceptance.
The court's final orders were that the examiner's objections regarding the manner of manufacture and lack of inventive step could not be maintained. The application was referred back to the examination section for further investigation into the curing feature in stackable aeration crates. If no new prior art was found, the application was to proceed to acceptance.
Orders
Orders of the court
The invention of the amended claims is for a manner of manufacture and the examiner’s objection under this ground cannot be maintained.
The invention of the amended claims does not lack an inventive step in light of the CGK and combined disclosure of prior art documents D1 and D2 and this objection also cannot be maintained in its current state.
I refer the application back to the examination section to further investigate whether the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates is disclosed in any other prior art document and if so whether a revised inventive step objection is appropriate. If not, the application should proceed to acceptance.
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.