IPA patent 6.1.3.1-allocation — IP Australia Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure – 6.1.3.1 Allocation

Also in this Chapter: 6.1.3.2 Preliminary Classification ​​​​​​​Key Legislation: PCT ISPE Guidelines: Paragraphs 15.21 - 15.22 Analysis of the Claims​​​​​​​ Key Related Chapters: 3.2 Customer Service Charter (Timeliness Standards) 4.4.1 Three Person Team (3PT) On this page Allocation of international searches Cross-section 3 person teams Allocation of international searches An international search must be allocated as quickly as possible to a search examiner who is capable of completing the search within, or as near as possible to within, the target time. See 3.2 Customer Service Charter (Timeliness Standards) for apology time limits. Provided that the quality of the search is not compromised, the overriding consideration in allocating the search is achieving the target time, rather than allocating the search to someone who it might be said to ‘belong to’ on the basis of its classification. A preliminary classification in accordance with the latest IPC edition will be assigned by automatic tech sorting. Allocation should ordinarily be accomplished within one or 2 days of the search file having been processed. If at any point it appears that this time frame is not going to be met, the situation must be brought to the attention of a Sort Examiner. The role of a Sort Examiner is to facilitate the allocation of the case to a search examiner. If despite the intervention of a Sort Examiner the one or 2 days deadline will still not be achieved, the matter should be referred to an IPC Classification Arbiter. The Arbiter will investigate the cause(s) of any hold-up and determine how best to proceed, having particular regard to paragraphs 15.21 and 15.22 of the PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines. Cross-section 3 person teams There may be cases where an examiner is allocated a search and/or classification in relation to a search area (whether first or secondary IPC) that is the responsibility of another section. In these instances, the search examiner should consider including an examiner from the other section in the 3 person search strategy team for guidance. They should certainly do so if they have serious doubts. This applies even if the search examiner is competent to carry out the search and/or classification. The aim is to carry out a search to produce the best result for the applicant in a way which is the most efficient for IP Australia. When seeking guidance, the search examiner should – in the interests of efficiency – at least make suggestions as to any possible classification marks. The same principle applies where the claims of an application span multiple technologies (perhaps involving multiple inventions), some of which are the responsibility of one or more other sections. The other section(s) should be consulted from the outset in the classification and searching of the international application. Additionally, examiners from the other section(s) should be considered for inclusion in the 3-person search strategy team (see 4.4.1 Three Person Team (3PT) ).