Amendment
to patent examination guidelines regarding determination of filing
dates
Yulan Kuo , Charles Chen
In
order to harmonise Taiwan's practice further with international patent
prosecution practice, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) recently
completed an amendment to the Procedural Examination Guidelines. The amendment
focuses on how to determine the filing date of a patent application.
In
Taiwan, patent applicants are required to submit, as part of an application,
certain information and documentation with the form application. As this
information and/or documentation are often not submitted with the application
itself, TIPO has attempted to set down which items must be submitted in
order for an applicant to receive an official filing date for an application.
As such, the amendment stipulates:
This
portion related to recording the filing date in the amendment was announced on
21st October 2010, and took effect on 1st January
2011.
Determination of filing
date
According to the Patent Act, the filing date of a patent
application is the day when the application form, along with the complete
specification and necessary drawings, are submitted. However, there remains
ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term ��complete��. In past practice, TIPO
struggled with the issue of whether it could record a filing date for a patent
application that did not contain the applicant's information or contained only a
portion of the description or drawings. In order to resolve this issue, the
amendment clearly stipulates that the filing date is obtained when the ��patent
applicant has filed documents that contain a complete disclosure of the
invention and indicate the applicant's intention to apply for a patent��.
Applicant's information
TIPO explained at a
public hearing that a patent application must be filed by an applicant which has
the right to file the application and to indicate its intention of applying
for a patent. Thus, an application must clearly indicate the name of the
individual or entity applicant, and such applicant must be entitled to apply for
the patent. As such, if the applicant's information is missing in the
application, or if the applicant indicated on the application form that it is
not entitled to apply for the patent, the application must be rejected due to
the lack of a right to file. The amendment clearly stipulates that if
the applicant's information is not indicated in the application, the application
will be rejected accordingly.
However, where the applicant fails to
indicate the required information, it will be permitted to remedy this situation
and a filing date will be obtained on the date on which the information is
provided to TIPO. For example, according to the amendment, if the applicant
subsequently submits its information before TIPO rejects the application due to
the failure to indicate the information, the date on which the information is
submitted will be the filing date. Where an applicant must amend its information
after filing, the filing date will be the date on which the applicant's
information is confirmed received by TIPO.
Conditions to
be met in order to obtain filing date
Whether the
specification is complete for the purpose of obtaining a filing date will be
determined by the description, claims and drawings. An applicant may, after the
application form is filed, provide the title of the invention and or supplement
the abstract without affecting the filing date. Drawings may be omitted if the
disclosure of the invention can be completely disclosed without the assistance
of drawings; if the application contains drawings, the drawings are considered
necessary and an omission of such necessary drawings will result in the
incomplete disclosure of the invention, and a filing date might not be obtained.
Where description or drawings are
incomplete
Previously, where the description or drawings
were incomplete, an applicant was permitted to supplement the same during the
procedural examination phase, and this would not affect the filing date.
However, this practice is not in line with the first to file rule. The amendment
brings Taiwan into compliance with the provision of Rule 21 of the Implementing
Regulations of the Patent Act and into harmony with relevant regulations in
other countries.
The purpose of the amendment is to stipulate the
processing procedures for applications in which parts of the description, claims
or drawings are missing, and also to clarify that the filing date shall be the
date on which the missing portions are supplemented. However, where an applicant
claims priority based on a foreign application, if the missing description,
claims or drawings are completely contained in the claimed priority application,
the date on which the application was originally submitted to TIPO will then be
the filing date.
If the missing part does not need to be
disclosed in regard to the invention, the applicant may claim, in a
written statement, that the missing parts do not affect the disclosure of the
invention and thus no supplementation is necessary. In such case, the filing
date will be the date on which the original application was filed with TIPO.
However, whether the disclosure is sufficient will be determined in the
substantive examination of the application. If the applicant fails to submit a
written reply and also fails to supplement the necessary items, the application
will be rejected for failure to provide a complete specification or drawings.
Specification and drawings in foreign
language
TIPO accepts specifications and drawings in foreign
languages for patent applications provided that a Chinese translation
is submitted within a specific period so as to retain the filing date originally
obtained when the application was submitted. According to the same principle,
the rule for handling missing information also applies to the supplemental
submission of a Chinese translation. Whether supplementation of the Chinese
translation of the specification and drawings will affect the filing date
depends on whether the supplementation is within the disclosure of the priority
application and whether the missing part must necessarily be disclosed.
Comment
The revisions are more suitable for
Taiwan's domestic patent system and conform closely to international
regulations, allowing for more precise implementation and thereby enhancing
procedural examination quality and maintaining legality and fairness in the
application process.