The instant case has been examined under section 12 & 13 of the Indian Patents

Act,
1970.
wipo/espacenet/orbit/uspto/Google patents

1. FORMAL OBJECTION
2. <p align= justify>Proof of right should be filed.
3. <p align= justify>Form- 2 should be in the prescribed format.
4. <p align= justify>Full name and signature should be given at the end of claims.
5. <p align= justify>English translation of the priority document should be filed as per
rule 21(2) of the patents Rules-1970.
6. <p align= justify>Full foreign filing particulars should be filed along with necessary
petition.
7. <p align= justify>Drawings should be filed as per rule 15 of the Patents Rules, 2003
in duplicate. Application No. should be mentioned on the Drawings and the drawings
should be signed by the Applicant's Agent in Original.
8. <p align= justify>Power of attorney should be filed.
9. <p align= justify>Designation of the signatory should be indicated in Form-26.
10. <p align= justify>Balance fee Rs.12000/- (Basic Filing fee= 4000; No. of Claims= 37
Rs. 20800; Total= 4000+20800= 24800/-; Balance fee= 24800-12800= Rs. 12000/-)
should be filed.
11. <p align= justify>Updated annexure to form 3 should be filed.
12. <p align= justify>Name and nationality of inventor should be mention in form-1
13. <p align= justify>Name of the signatory should be indicated in Form-18.
14. <p align= justify>Blank pages should be scored out.
15. <P align=justify>Number of claim filed in nation phase is less than original filed in
PCT. If amendment has been made Under Section 19 of PCT, Proof of amendment
should be provided; otherwise pay the full fees as number of original failed claims
Under Rule 20(3)(a), The Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended).
16. <p align= justify>Power of attorney should be accompanied by adequate stamp duty.
17. <p align= justify> Priority document should be filed immediately.
18.

TECHNICAL OBJECTION
1.<p align= justify>The instant case does not constitute an invention under section 2(1)
(j) of the Indian Patents, Act-1970.
2.<p align= justify>Abstract should be filed under rule 13(7) of the Patents Rules, 2003
removing the unnecessary things.
3.<p align= justify>Title of invention should be consistent with form 1, opening
description and claims.
4.<p align= justify>the subsequent claims should elaborate the features of principal
claim after the phrase as claimed in claim wherein.
5.<p align= justify>Drafting of claims is not proper because of which the nature & scope
of the alleged invention cannot be clearly ascertained. The statement of claims should
therefore be revised & all essential features of the invention should be brought in
claim1 while subsidiary features of the invention may be claimed in dependent claims.
5.<p align= justify>Novel/inventive features should be characterized in principal claim.
6.<p align= justify>The title of invention is not precise & does not indicate sufficiently
the subject matter of the alleged invention and should be amended according to the
claims.
7.<p align= justify>Claims should be started with we claim.
8.<p align= justify>Reference numerals should be given in the claims for better
intangibility to the reader.
9.<p align= justify>Further comprising should be deleted from claims.
10.<p align= justify>Inappropriate words like substantially should be deleted from the
claims.

11.<p align= justify>Complete specification should be retyped freshly removing all

unnecessary matters.
12.<p align= justify>Necessary figure may be indicated in the abstract and abstract
should be prepared in accordance with the instructions contained in the Rule 13{7(d)}
of the Patent Rules, 2003(as amended in 2006). Reference numerals may be given
wherever necessary in abstract.
13.<p align= justify>Complete specification is not well structured. It should cover
properly the back ground of invention, summary of invention and detailed description
with drawings and examples.
14.<p align= justify>Reference to foreign patent applications/patents should be
supplemented by Indian specification.
15.<p align= justify>Independent claims 1 & 3 - 12 are not allowed, because those
claims are only allowed if the subject matter claimed falls within one or more of the
exceptional situations e.g. if those claims define any different uses of the product, if
those claims provide any alternative solution to the problem and if those claims define
different products. But those things are not applicable here for the alleged invention.
16.<p align= justify>Nature and scope of the invention cannot be ascertained in view of
number of independent set of claims like Therefore claims should be revised to
indicate the broad feature in main claim and independent feature in subordinate claims.
17. <p align= justify>Prior art should be mentioned in the complete specification.
18. <p align= justify> Abstract should be filed u/r 13(7) of The Patents Rules.
19. <p align= justify>Form-13 should be file due to differ of claims form priority
documents.
20. <p align= justify>Claim 5 and 6 are mathematical formula which cannot be allowed
since falls under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
21. <p align= justify>Claim 19 is an omnibus claim does not have any legal basis under
the Patents Act. In fact, such a claim cannot be allowed as per Section 10(4)(c) of the
Act.

Form-6 and 13
1.<p align= justify>F/6 cannot be processed in absence of any change for address for
service according to Rule 5 of The Patents Rules. Moreover original GPA should be filed
from the
2.<p align= justify>Form 6 has not been allowed in absence power of authority in your
favor from the new applicant.
3.<p align= justify>F/13 has not been allowed as the proposed amendment was not
highlighted.
4.<p align= justify>F/6 has not been allowed as the applicant's name in F/6 and that of
application are not matching. It should be properly clarified along with the assignment.