I'm forwarding this to the list because I think from the header that it only
reached me, but the comments were intended to go to the list. Apologies if I've
duplicated anything.
Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick wrote:
> To Stephen, Claudia and PIUG list,
>
> In relation to Australian patents, as an Australian patent attorney I would
> like to add a few additional points to those made by Stephen Adams.
>
> > To take the second case first-
> > Chris Torrero is quite correct that AU republishes WO documents with an AU
> > number when they enter the national phase, but these WO/AU documents only
> > serve to replace the AU-A (unexamined) stage.
>
> This is not technically correct. Where a PCT application designates AU, the
> AU office will republish the WO pamphlet with an AU number (ie
> AU-A-12345/99) prior to entry into national phase, shortly after the WO
> document publishes (approx 18-19 months). However, with recent changes to
> the AU Office practice, the PCT documents are no longer physically published
> (ie on microfiche) by the AU Office. PCT application designating AU, when
> the WO pamplet publishes, will be designated an AU-A number and a link on
> the IP Australia website will be made to the corresponding WO document on
> esp@cenet. Under Australian law, the application is for the most part
> treated like an Australia application even though it has not (or may not)
> enter national phase.
>
> > After substantive examination, a genuine AU-B with a final registration
> number in
> > the 6-digit
> > series would be published, containing the claims as they had been approved
> > in AU. So it looks as if your document supplier have decided to send you
> > the unexamined equivalent of what you actually asked for, and in this
> > particular case that has turned out to be a WO/AU document.
> >
>
> Stephen is correct in that after substantive examination, should the
> application be accepted, it will be designated a B number (ie AU-B-12345/99)
> and be given a 6 digit serial number (ie AU-654321), These numbers are
> designated when the application is an "accepted application" but before it
> is sealed as a "patent". There is a post acceptance opposition period of 3
> months from the advertised acceptance date in Australia.
>
> > The AU564505 case is a bit more puzzling. That would seem on the surface
> > to be a genuine AU-B number. Are you sure it doesn't say "Application for
> > a standard *patent*", rather than "Application for a standard"?
> > This is a
> > terminology which could be used to distinguish it from an
> > application for a
> > petty patent; the US equivalents would be utility patent and
> > something akin
> > to a design patent. If so, then you may have once again been sent the
> > unexamined equivalent of the granted patent. Check your document
> > supplier. Unfortunately some of the smaller ones do get into the habit of
> > converting requests for granted documents into the nearest unexamined
> > equivalent, which may not be suitable for your needs.
> >
>
> The offical status of "AU564505" is :
> Australian patent AU-564505 (AU-B-30233/84) is in force, with annuities paid
> to 3 July 2000. Should annuities be maintained, the patent will expire on 3
> July 2004 (ie a 20 year term). The application was advertised as accepted
> on 13 August 1987, there was no opposition. The patent was sealed on 17
> November 1987. The patentee is "Monsanto Co.", inventors "Donald Ray
> MCALISTER and Steven Anthong ZIEBOLD", the invention title is "Heat Recovery
> in Sulfuric Acid Processes".
>
> As Stephen correctly suggests, this is a standard patent, and not a petty
> patent.
>
> > > Are
> > > AU564505 and AU 639998 in fact real live Australian examined patents or
> > > are they applications which will never be granted patents?
> >
> > In both cases, the six-digit series is indicative of examined patents.
> > Strictly, there is a number series which duplicates the application number
> > but with a B suffix, followed by a final registration number in
> > the 6-digit
> > series. The whole sequence, if it includes a provisional application, is
> > as follows:
> >
> > Provisional filing : Application number format Pa-NNNN, where 'a' is a
> > second letter (currently O or P I think)
> > Main filing : Application number AU-A-NNNNN/YY, which in Derwent-speak is
> > rendered as YYYYAU-NNNNNNN.
> > Unexamined publication : Publication number AU-A-NNNNN/YY, rendered by
> > Derwent as AU-YYNNNNN-A. Note that the YY component is the year of
> > application, not publication.
> > Examined publication : Publication number AU-B-NNNNN/YY, where the number
> > and year are the same as for the A.
> > Granted registration number : Publication number AU-NNNNNN-B.
> >
>
> This is an good summary of the numbering system in Australia, although we
> refer to the "granted registration number" as the "serial number".
>
> > For further details, the PIUG web site contains a reference to my paper in
> > World Patent Information a few years ago "Patent documentation from the
> > Pacific Rim countries", which goes into more detail.
> >
>
> (note to Stephen....I would like to get a copy of this paper. Can you give
> me some contact details?)
>
> Regards
> Rodney Cruise
> Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick
> Australian & New Zealand Patent and Trade Mark Attorney
> rodney.cruise@pof.com.au
> rodney.cruise@ipmenu.com
-- Stephen Adams Magister Ltd. Crown House, 231 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4LS, GB Tel: +44 (0)118 929 9515 Fax: +44 (0)118 929 9516 e-mail: stevea@magister.co.ukRegistered in England and Wales. Company No. 3407685 Registered address : Canada House, 272 Field End Road, Eastcote, Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 9NA.
--------------D2D9C440B6D65D4EEB08883B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
X-POP3-Rcpt: stevea@galahad Return-Path: attorney@pof.com.au Received: from fepa.mail.ozemail.net (fepa.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.101]) by tgis.co.uk (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA06052 for <stevea@magister.co.uk>; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:44:40 GMT Posted-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:44:40 GMT Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:44:40 GMT Received: from qizhqccd (patents.ozemail.com.au [203.108.38.179]) by fepa.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06022 for <stevea@magister.co.uk>; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:44:36 +1100 (EST) Reply-To: <attorney@pof.com.au> From: "Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick" <attorney@pof.com.au> To: "Stephen Adams" <stevea@magister.co.uk> Subject: RE: Australian patents Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:52:54 +1100 Message-ID: <LNBBLOEHBBNGIKCDGFEHMEICDPAA.attorney@pof.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <38424884.9EF5382A@magister.co.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
To Stephen, Claudia and PIUG list,
In relation to Australian patents, as an Australian patent attorney I would like to add a few additional points to those made by Stephen Adams.
> To take the second case first- > Chris Torrero is quite correct that AU republishes WO documents with an AU > number when they enter the national phase, but these WO/AU documents only > serve to replace the AU-A (unexamined) stage.
This is not technically correct. Where a PCT application designates AU, the AU office will republish the WO pamphlet with an AU number (ie AU-A-12345/99) prior to entry into national phase, shortly after the WO document publishes (approx 18-19 months). However, with recent changes to the AU Office practice, the PCT documents are no longer physically published (ie on microfiche) by the AU Office. PCT application designating AU, when the WO pamplet publishes, will be designated an AU-A number and a link on the IP Australia website will be made to the corresponding WO document on esp@cenet. Under Australian law, the application is for the most part treated like an Australia application even though it has not (or may not) enter national phase.
> After substantive examination, a genuine AU-B with a final registration number in > the 6-digit > series would be published, containing the claims as they had been approved > in AU. So it looks as if your document supplier have decided to send you > the unexamined equivalent of what you actually asked for, and in this > particular case that has turned out to be a WO/AU document. >
Stephen is correct in that after substantive examination, should the application be accepted, it will be designated a B number (ie AU-B-12345/99) and be given a 6 digit serial number (ie AU-654321), These numbers are designated when the application is an "accepted application" but before it is sealed as a "patent". There is a post acceptance opposition period of 3 months from the advertised acceptance date in Australia.
> The AU564505 case is a bit more puzzling. That would seem on the surface > to be a genuine AU-B number. Are you sure it doesn't say "Application for > a standard *patent*", rather than "Application for a standard"? > This is a > terminology which could be used to distinguish it from an > application for a > petty patent; the US equivalents would be utility patent and > something akin > to a design patent. If so, then you may have once again been sent the > unexamined equivalent of the granted patent. Check your document > supplier. Unfortunately some of the smaller ones do get into the habit of > converting requests for granted documents into the nearest unexamined > equivalent, which may not be suitable for your needs. >
The offical status of "AU564505" is : Australian patent AU-564505 (AU-B-30233/84) is in force, with annuities paid to 3 July 2000. Should annuities be maintained, the patent will expire on 3 July 2004 (ie a 20 year term). The application was advertised as accepted on 13 August 1987, there was no opposition. The patent was sealed on 17 November 1987. The patentee is "Monsanto Co.", inventors "Donald Ray MCALISTER and Steven Anthong ZIEBOLD", the invention title is "Heat Recovery in Sulfuric Acid Processes".
As Stephen correctly suggests, this is a standard patent, and not a petty patent.
> > Are > > AU564505 and AU 639998 in fact real live Australian examined patents or > > are they applications which will never be granted patents? > > In both cases, the six-digit series is indicative of examined patents. > Strictly, there is a number series which duplicates the application number > but with a B suffix, followed by a final registration number in > the 6-digit > series. The whole sequence, if it includes a provisional application, is > as follows: > > Provisional filing : Application number format Pa-NNNN, where 'a' is a > second letter (currently O or P I think) > Main filing : Application number AU-A-NNNNN/YY, which in Derwent-speak is > rendered as YYYYAU-NNNNNNN. > Unexamined publication : Publication number AU-A-NNNNN/YY, rendered by > Derwent as AU-YYNNNNN-A. Note that the YY component is the year of > application, not publication. > Examined publication : Publication number AU-B-NNNNN/YY, where the number > and year are the same as for the A. > Granted registration number : Publication number AU-NNNNNN-B. >
This is an good summary of the numbering system in Australia, although we refer to the "granted registration number" as the "serial number".
> For further details, the PIUG web site contains a reference to my paper in > World Patent Information a few years ago "Patent documentation from the > Pacific Rim countries", which goes into more detail. >
(note to Stephen....I would like to get a copy of this paper. Can you give me some contact details?)
Regards Rodney Cruise Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick Australian & New Zealand Patent and Trade Mark Attorney rodney.cruise@pof.com.au rodney.cruise@ipmenu.com
--------------D2D9C440B6D65D4EEB08883B--