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!
Now, the question ensues! Is opting for Chapter – II necessary? The answer to that ought to have been -> NO! As whether in Article 19 or Article 34, what merely mentions -> may, optional, and, non-biding, including in Article 33. Now, how many times at any designated offices at territorial level, amendments of -> from description to drawings to claims take place? There’re instances wherein the amendments would be refused for the reason that the applicant just doesn’t want to amend, and is ready for the appeal! Moreover, Article 17 clearly includes in the ISA -> the claims, description, and, drawings part; then why technically we require the existence of Chapter – II at first instance? Why can’t this all be resolved in Chapter – I? OR, create something like Madrid OR Hague, as Madrid being the Medium of the amendments and corrections at Administrative level, that been sent to the designated states in the binding state (Almost), implicitly! I’m only talking about restricting reports and amendments to One Level, rather than going onto the Cascading Levels like been done in Chapter I, & then, in Chapter II!
Yes, you can take the amendment fees in Chapter – I, as I’m not asking it to be done for Free! What this all achieve? Cascading prosecution unwarranted timelines will be eliminated! All this makeover is needed, unless your report becomes binding on the regional or designated or elected offices! And that won’t happen, because as per the Paris Convention & TRIPS Treaty, the designated or the regional or elected offices have their own territorial rights!
That’s why I like
the Madrid and Hague System! They act as the bridge between the applicant and
the designated offices; remain concerned about the administrative details rather
than defining of the prosecution guidelines. Because the administrative part is
at least binding on all the designated offices (in most cases). Thus, if
PCT also takes upon the same road less travelled, then, it would mitigate the unnecessary
Chapter – II part. Now I’m not against Chapter – I, but I’m a bit skeptical
about the Chapter – II, and the Supplementary Issuance of the Search Report; because,
what is the guarantee that even after the amendments; the elected, or, designated
or, regional offices would accept the amendments? Because, they will have their
own prosecution, and what if they found, that
more amendments were needed or were not needed at all? So, how many cascading
life cycles we have travelled!
Thus, can we have IPRP == IPER! As in any case we call IPER as (IPRP Chapter - II).
Am I missing something? Please do Correct me so that I can make the Corrections if there’s anything erroneously I’ve misinterpreted, or, mentioned! My blogs are more of interpretations rather than citing copy-pasted interpretations vide citing precedence, which is -> BORING!😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment