This Argument Lies In Grey Area! I Once Used It, & Albeit It Was Rejected For All The Correct Reasons, But Worth Discerning Upon As Why There’s A Problem With Some Of The WIPO Prosecution Timelines in “PCT” & Why I Admire “MADRID & HAGUE” Prosecutions ‘Structure’ More, In The Comparative Analysis!

 

Take This Scenario!

The time limit mentioned in the PCT/RO/132 of approx. 5 DAYS can indeed be extended, for the reason under Article 14(1)(b) wherein if the receiving office finds any defects, it shall invite the Applicant to correct them under Rule 26(1) of PCT Regulation, and, the Time Limit to Correct the Defects under Rule 26(1) of the Regulation shall be TWO MONTHS under Rule 26(2) of the Regulation from the date of invitation to correct, which further mentions that -> it may be extended by the receiving Office at any time before a decision is taken. Now, this will circumvent the necessity of the cooling period of six weeks wait time before going in the convention country, either directly or vide the PCT, wherein the time limit to process the said request is usually approx. 21 Days, for by passing the six weeks colling period, or, maybe for directly going into the convention country, as per the instructions given to the Applicant in PCT/RO/132 and PCT/RO/105.

The Conundrum of Chapter – I & Chapter – II! And Their Non-Biding Status Dilemma!

 

What Chapter – I’s ISA IPRP provides? An optional opportunity to amend merely the -> Claims! No more No less! And what Chapter – II’s IPER provides! An optioinal opportunity to amend Claims, Description, and, Drawings! Again, Non-Binding on the regional, elected, or designated offices, as well as Optional, the latter being more effectual than mandatory! And what does Supplementary Search provides? Another optional Non-Binding additional Report! Correct? Following the same mutatis-mutandis!