The online examination has been

done on the basis of documents

available in the e-module as per office
order no 63 on dated 9-09-2014 and
order no 79 on dated 15-092014.Put
up for controller"s consideration.
All forms with changed address of service as given in Form 13 should be filled wherever
applicable.

You are required to provide breakup of fees in respect of additional pages of the complete
specification (including Form-2 as the 1st page of specification, Abstract and Drawings) in
your response. In case you have not filed the adequate fees for the same U/R 7(2)(c), balance
fees in respect of additional pages should be submitted immediately along with necessary
petition and fees, failing which the instant application shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Act.
However, without prejudice.
Reference numerals besides technical features should be clearly incorporated in claims to
clearly define the invention.

In case the applicant decides to amend the claims subsequent to this report, the same
shall be drafted afresh to include the technical advancement over the prior art as
required
u/s
2(1)j
of
the
Patents
Act.
Please indicate in the response communication the support for the claims in the
original
specification,
as
required
u/s
10(4)
of
the
Act.
Please provide an additional copy of marked up amendments (highlighting the
amendments) where ever applicable. And amendement should be as per rule 9 and 14 0f
the
Act(as
amended).
In case the applicant decides to contest this report, the technical reasons therefore
may
please
be
indicated
in
the
response
communication.
Details regarding the search and/or examination report including claims of the
application allowed, as referred to in Rule 12(3) of the Patent Rule, 2003, in respect of
same or substantially the same invention filed in all the major Patent offices such as
USPTO,EPO and JPO etc., along with appropriate translation where applicable, should be
submitted within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of this communication
as provided under section 8(2) of the Indian Patents Act.

Fresh forms should be filed in prescribed format as par the Indian patent act 1970,
due to change of applicants.

GPA: GPA should be filled / signed by the applicant /

authorized agent.

Proof of right : Proof of assignment of right from inventor to applicant

should be furnished. under clause (2) of section 7 of Indian Patents
Act , 1970.

Signature: Name and signature of authorized agent should be given at the end of all

forms,

drawing sheets and at the end of claims in prescribed manner.

Priority document : Priority document should be filled.

ADDRESS:

Address of Applicant as given in Form-1, Form-2, Form-3, Form-5, PA,

GPA and Form-18 should be consistent with that appearing in respect of the corresponding
PCT application. It should be rectified over filing of Form-13 with fees.

FEES: Notwithstanding other objections, following are required to be submitted:

(a) Corresponding PCT application and/ or certified English translation of the same to ascertain if
the specification/ claims in this instant application are filed in prescribed manner.
(b) Clarification if this instant (NP) application is indeed filed U/R 7(2)(c) read together U/S 10(4A) and 138(4) of the Act in respect of additional specification pages (including Form-2, Abstract
and Drawings) and claims and fees submitted thereof, else this instant application may proceed
U/S 142(3) of the Act.

WE CLAIM : Preamble to claims should be amended to read as "We claim" in the

specification.

uspto, espacenet

google patents

Form 13 fees for voluntary amendment 500rs .

F13 has been filled to change agent's address of service. It nay be allowed and further send
for controller's consideration.
Form 1 shows fee submitted for instant application is Rs 38800 while payment done to office
is only Rs 38000 . You are required to clarify this anomaly and consideration to the instant
application is deferred until then.
Any amendment made in Form 1 should be by way of filling Form 13, as per subsection (2) of
Section 57 of Patent Act 1970 and as amended Patent Act 2005.
Priority documents should be submitted.
Form-1 and Form-3 show different priority dates. Priority date appearing on Form-1 is a date
after Filing in India.

The online examination has been done on the basis of documents available in the emodule as per office order no 63 on dated 9-09-2014 and order no 79 on dated 15092014.Put up for controller"s consideration. Note: 1.. PA in not verifiable in the
absence of physical document 2.Stamping and fee details are also not clearly visible.
Examination report has been prepared u/s 12 of patent Act 1970. Put up for n/a through emodule.

It is further send for controllers consideration.

Amended Claims fall within the scope of clause (k) of section 3 of IPA-1970 being algorithm/computer program
per se. Also FER objections have not been not found to be satisfactorily replied.It is further send for
controller's consideration .

Due to non-availability of response of FER dated 26/04/2013 in electronic file and noncompliance of requirements imposed by FER by the applicant , the instant application may
be treated as deemed to have been abandoned under section 21(1) of Indian Patents Act ,
1970.
Some FER Objections are sustained as they are not found to be satisfactorily replied
Until reply by the applicant , grant of patent is differed. Put up for controllers
consideration.
FER Objections are sustained also new objections are added and until reply by
the applicant , grant of patent is differed. Put up for controllers consideration.

Examination has been done and put up for controller's consideration.f

All formal and technical objections have been satisfactorily replied hence it is further
send to controllers consideration .
FER objections are met but New objections are added and until reply of SER , grant of
patent is differed. Put up for controllers consideration.
New objection is added and until reply is given , grant of patent is differed . send for
controller's consideration.
ADS has been verified and put up for controllers consideration.
Since no reply has been given after FER till one year. This instant file should be
abandoned and send for controller's consideration.
Objection vide Para 1 of FER .is still maintained .applicants submission in
this regard is not persuasive and convincing either.
Objection vide para 4 of FER is still maintained as several elements , such as
(46),(50), .., which although appear in the dependent calims , are not
supported in Claim 1 . AS such amendments made in the complete specification
on Form 13 is deferred until; observation from you are received.
Proof of right is not submitted in prescribed manner under section 7(2) and
under rule 10.
Since no response of FER filled till now .this case should be abandoned and send to
controller's consideration.
The objection no :1 of our office letter dated 17/06/2010 is still maintained.
511/kolnp/2008 showing in abandon cases ,ferrply date 7/2/2013 is within 1 year. pls
transfer it into amended cases.
511/kolnp/2008 not showing in module after receiving it .pls resolve.

All objections in FER done by previous examiner have been satisfactorily replied hence
it is further send to controllers consideration for approval of grant of patent.
form 13 to amend claims with highlighted copies in the specification has been filled. It
is further send to controller's consideration.

Form 13 & Form 6 objections :

Agent's address of service has been changed by F 13 . It may
be allowed and further send for controller's consideration.
May not be allowed as revised F/26 in favour of new address for service not filed.
Objection:
Revised F/26 in favour of new address for service should be filed.
Amendments proposed under Form-13 should be brought out on a separate copy of
specification. Reasons for making such amendments should also be specified clearly.may not
be allowed.
Amendments proposed on Form-13 as per section 57 of The Patent Act ,should be brought
out on a separate copy of specification. Reasons for making such voluntarily amendments
should also be specified clearly.

Voluntary amendment in respect of addition of claim 22 is not allowable under section 59 of

the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
Form-13 is filed while entering into national phase.Form-13 will be allowed only after
entering into National Phase in India .There are 241 claims filed in the PCT stage, while only
45 claims are included in this instant NP Application. There should be 132 pages(94 pages of
description and claims, 36 drawing sheets, Form-2 and Abstract) as required U/R 13 read
with U/S 10(4) & (4-A) and 138(4) of the Act. Hence, fees of Rs. additional 196 claims
respect of additional 21 pages should be submitted immediately along with necessary petition
and fees, failing which the instant application shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Act.
Amendment to specification is not allowed since mark-up copy is
not furnished , and subject matter is different from the subject
matter of earlier claim , earlier claims filed dated 24/11/2004
claims of a computer object model for accessing the resources of
XML while the amended claims filed dated 25/11/2008 relates to
computer implemented method for modifying the resources of
XML , So amendment in claims is not allowed under section 59 of
Indian Patents Act , 1970. So examination has been conducted on
claims filed dated 24/11/2004.

The amendments that you wish to make in the claims by way of Form 13, have neither been submitted the
proposed amendment in Complete Specification nor been highlighted as per subsection (2) of Section 57 of
Patent Act 1970 and as amended Patent Act 2005. Therefore, your request for having technical amendments on
record has not been considered by the office at this point of time. You are advised to submit the proposed
amendment duly highlighted that you wish to make along with the undertaking that making such amendments
does not result in addition of new matter.
The amendments that you wish to make in the claims have neither been submitted as the proposed amendment
in Complete Specification nor been highlighted as per subsection (2) of Section 57 of Patent Act 1970 and as
amended Patent Act 2005. You are advised to submit the proposed amendment duly highlighted that you wish
to make along with the undertaking that making such amendments does not result in addition of new matter.

Form 13 has been given by way of correction and explanation to revise claims to overcome
objections raised in FER with marked up copy . It is further put for controllers consideration.

The amendments in the claims and technical specification by way of Form

13, have not been submitted hence Form 13 may not be allowed and
further send for controller's consideration .
Two F/13S HAVE BEEN FILED. MARK-UP COPY FOR BOTH IS NOT THERE. Applicant should
provide the reasons for filling Form 13and additional copy of marked up amendments
(highlighting the amendments) where ever applicable.

Two F/13 HAVE BEEN FILED. MARK-UP COPY FOR BOTH IS NOT THERE. Applicant
should provide additional copy of marked up amendments (highlighting the amendments)
where ever applicable. put up for controller's consideration.

Form 13 is given with change in address of service .it should be allowed

and further send to controller's consideration.
In one of the proof document in compliance with form 6,the name of applicant on form 6 and
that given on proof document does not match.

Form 13 for technical amendment has been provided . Marked up copy has not been
submitted .Marked up copy for technical amendment in specification should be provided. It
may not be allowed and further send for controller's consideration .
Form-13 is filed while entering into national phase.Form-13 will be be allowed only after entering
into National Phase in India.There are 47 claims filed in the PCT stage, while only 28 claims are
included in this instant NP Application. There should be 132 pages(94 pages of description and
claims, 36 drawing sheets, Form-2 and Abstract) as required U/R 13 read with U/S 10(4) & (4-A)
and 138(4) of the Act. Hence, fees in respect of additional 19 claims and 2 pages should be
submitted immediately along with necessary petition and fees, failing which the instant application
shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Act. However, without prejudice.
Form 13 has been filed for change in applicants address for service. However the requisite Power of Attorney in
favour of signatory of Form 13 is neither filed with respect of the instant application earlier, nor it is
accompanied with the Form 13. Further, Fresh Form 1 containing the new address for service is also not filed.
In view of the above facts, Form 13 may not be allowed.
Form 6 for this instant application is not found via e module documents . It may not be
allowed and further send for controller's consideration .
Two Form 6 regarding change of applicant has been filed on same date 31.08.2010 and It is
not clear which one of the form 6 should be taken into consideration .Also submit relevant
documents to comply with Form 6.

The amendments that you wish to make in the drawing by way of

Form 13 dated 08/12/2008 have not been highlighted by you for
the office to consider them. Therefore, your request for having
technical amendments on record has not been considered by the
office at this point of time. You are advised to highlight the
amendments that you wish to make along with the undertaking
that making such amendments does not result in addition of new
matter.

Formal Objections:
Duly attested copy of GPA should be filed as the same is not on office record.

granted in US.<br>Invention claimed in claim(s) prima facie

is not novel ,inventive in view of following citations
(publication nos.):US2001/011255

1) Proof of Right has to be filed along with proper authentication of inventors with petition
u/r 137 of Patents Act.
2) Proof of assignment of right from inventor to applicant should be
furnished. under clause (2) of section 7 of Indian Patents Act , 1970.

3) GPA should be filled / signed by the applicant / authorized agent.

4) In case of NP application if relevant pct docs are not uploaded :

Notwithstanding other objections, following are required to be submitted:

(a) Corresponding PCT application and/ or certified English translation of the same to ascertain if
the specification/ claims in this instant application are filed in prescribed manner.
(b) Clarification if this instant (NP) application is indeed filed U/R 7(2)(c) read together U/S 10(4A) and 138(4) of the Act in respect of additional specification pages (including Form-2, Abstract
and Drawings) and claims and fees submitted thereof, else this instant application may proceed
U/S 142(3) of the Act.

Fresh forms should be filed in prescribed format as par the Indian patent act 1970,
due to change of applicants.
Handwritten matter not allowed in claims part of complete specification according to rule 9
of Indian patent rules 2003 amended in 2006.
5)

Name and signature of authorized agent should be given at the end of all forms, drawing
sheets and at the end of claims in prescribed manner.

Priority document should be filled.

6) The applicants service address should be same in form 1 and GPA and also
at all other forms where ever applicable .

7) Preamble to claims should be amended to read as "We claim" in the specification.

8)

Form-2 should be filed as first page of specification in prescribed manner as stipulated in sub Rule
7 of Rule 20 of Patent Rule 2003 and Patent (amendment) Rule 2006. Further, fees of Rs. 400/- in
respect of additional page should be submitted immediately along with necessary petition and fees, failing
which the instant application shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Actanddeemed to be withdrawn as per Rule 22
of Patent Rule 2003.

9) Address of Applicant as given in Form-1, Form-2, Form-3, Form-5, PA and Form-18 are not
consistent with that appearing in respect of the corresponding PCT application. It should
be rectified over filing of Form-13 with fees.
Address of Applicant as given in Form-1, Form-2, Form-3, Form-5, PA, GPA and Form18 should be consistent with that appearing in respect of the corresponding PCT
application. It should be rectified over filing of Form-13 with fees.

10) Address and nationality of applicant and Title of invention should be duly mentioned on
Power of Attorney.
11) Nationality of Applicant and Inventor are not given in Form-1, Form-5, Form-3 and Form18. Nationality of Inventors is not given in Form-1 and Form-5.

12) Form-26 as filed lacks signatures of the notary.Should be duly notarized.

13) Form 1,Form 3,Form 5 should be filed in proper format.

14) There are 35 claims in the International (PCT) application, however, this instant (NP)
application has 34 claims. Hence, this instant application is not allowed U/R 7(2)(c) and
U/S 10(4-A) and 138(4) of the Act, unless fees for additional claims is filed with necessary
petition and fees to regularize this irregularity, failing which this instant application shall
proceed U/S 142(3) of the Act.

15) The applicants service address should be same in form 1 and GPA and also at all other
forms where ever applicable .

16) Nationality of inventors not mentioned on Form 1 . Form 1 should be filled in prescribed format.
17) Priority application has only 3 claims. This instant application claims 4-11 are not fairly
based on the priority application claims. Further, Claims 12-15 are also not fairly based
on the priority application. Hence, claims 4-15 are not allowed under the Act.
18) Assignment from inventor to applicant is not filed in the matter of this instant
application, bearing the correct name of the applicant in prescribed manner, and it
should be notarized.
19) Clear

copy of GPA should be submitted.

20) Name of the applicant put under the heading of "priority particulars..."(Form 1), differs
from PCT data.

21) GPA should reflect the reference number of the file with which original copy was
submitted.
22) The applicant name on PCT pamphlet( international phase) is not same as on Form-1.
23) Proof of Right from inventors in favor of this national phase applicant is not filed in
prescribed manner.
Your response to the matter relating to proof of Right is considered. However,
requirement U/S 7(2) necessitates filing of Proof of Right within prescribed time period,
which is not done in this instant application. In this regard IPAB Order no.
OA/39/2011/PT/CH dated 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013 may be referred to.
24) Power

of Authority in favour of Agent duly executed by the applicant and duly stamped
under the said Act or the prescribed form 26 should be filed to ratify the actions of agent,
in accordance with rule 135 of The Patents Rule, 2003 as amended by The Patents
Amendment Rules, 2006.
25) PCT Details furnished in various forms of application prima facia seems to be of some
other application. Information furnished should be corrected according to section 78(2) ,
of Indian patents act 1970 , along with petition under rule 137 of Patents Rules, 2003 (as
amended).
26) Fee should be deposited as per claims filed in PCT , form-13 should be filed for the
amendments made in the specification. Voluntary amendment in respect of claims is not
allowable under section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).

Claims 18-21 recite various means. These claims are not clear in respect of structural features of the said means.
Also these claims are not supported by the description.

In absence of such structural features the claims are indefinite and do not satisfy the requirement of section
10(4)(c) of the Act.
27)
28)

The agent has not paid the balance fee ofas per the calculation . It may be
informed to tne agent accordingly . The agent may be informed that the prescribed
fee as per rule 7 (schedule 1) of the patent act rules.put up for controller
consideration and necessary action.
In case the applicant decides to contest this report, the reasons therefor along with the the
technical significance thereof may please be indicated in the response communication.

Technical Objections:
(1) Subject matter of claims do not constitute an invention U/S 2(1)(j) of the Act. See for
instance Demshki, Jr. (US 6004005), Byrd et al. (US 6633328).
OR
In view of the following documents
D1:
D2:
D3:
D4:
D5":
D1 teaches
D2 describes
D3 teaches
D4 describes
D5 teaches
It is obvious for a person skilled in the art to produce the present invention by
combining effects of the above documents. Hence the present invention is not novel
and falls under 2(1)(j) of the patent act.

Invention claimed in claim(s) prima facie is not novel, inventive in view of following citations
(publication no.):OMNIRAMIC OPTICAL SYSTEM HAVING CENTRAL COVERAGE MEANS WHICH IS
ASSOCIATED WITH A CAMERA, PROJECTOR, OR SIMILAR ARTICLE: WO9846116.
Claim 7 is not novel in view of document . D3(WO 03/037039 ).Refer to Abstract,fig and
claims.

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).

The essential technical features of the claims should be provided with reference signs
placed in parentheses to increase the intelligibility of the claims . This applies to both the
preamble and characterising portion .

Omnibus Claim 11 is indefinite and do not satisfy the requirement of section 10(4) (c)
of the Patents Act, 1970(as amended).

In case the applicant decides to amend the claims subsequent to this

report, the same shall be drafted afresh to include the technical
advancement over the prior art as required u/s 2(1)(j) of the Patent"s
Act. Please indicate in the response communication the support for the
claims in the original specification, as required u/s 10(4) of the Act. Care
shall be taken that requirement S59(1) of the Act is also met. Please
provide an additional copy of marked up amendments (highlighting the
amendments) where ever applicable.
(2)Claims are not clear in respect of , which should be elaborated therein.
Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression further comprising.

In the description and the claims 1, 2 and 8 the words 'release', 'release mechanism',
'quick release', 'quick release unit' and 'quick release construction' are inconsistently used
for. the same technical feature thereby rendering the claims 1, 2 and 8 vague and equivocal .
these should be aptly reworded or removed .
claim 1, 17 are not clear to how the fourth threshold value is determined and how the fourth
threshold value is calculated and the purpose it serves in achieving the function of the
applicant"s invention.

The "plurality" , "at least one" terms used in various claims have no well-recognized meaning
and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers,
thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claims unclear.

(4) The Drawings referred to in the specification should be prepared in accordance with the
instructions contained in the Rule 15 of the Patent Rules, 2003(as amended in 2006).
(6)Multiple dependency of claims are not allowed. It makes the scope and boundary of

the invention broad . Drafting of claims should be done in such a manner that only 1
independent claim will highlight the all essential features of the invention while all other
claims will depends on main claim1 and explain the individual features to make
invention more clear ,definitive and within the well define boundary and scope of the
specification disclosed.
(7)The essential technical features of the claims should be provided with reference signs
placed in parentheses to increase the intelligibility of the claims . This applies to both the
preamble and characterising portion .
(8) Distinguishing features with regard to sufficient prior literature (references) are
insufficient to examine technical advancement over the prior art.

(9) Title is inconsistent with description and claims.

The title of the invention is not descriptive.

A new title is required that is clearly

indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It is noted that the claimed invention
is directed solely to a method. The examiner
suggests amending the title to reflect same.

Omnibus Claims 25-27 are indefinite and do not satisfy the

requirement of section 10(4) (c) of the Patents Act, 1970(as
amended).
(11)

are not clear in respect of expression as herein described with reference to

accompanying drawings. These statements make the claims ambiguous and vague. Also said
expression makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought and hence
do not fulfill the requirements of section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
Claims and

Present set of claims defines a plurality of distinct inventions as follow:

Group (1): Claims --Mention the inventive feature(s)
Group (2): Claims --Mention the inventive features(s)
The inventions listed in these two groups define separate inventions as stated above and are
not linked so as to form single general inventive concept as defined u/s 10(5) of the Patents
Act 1970(as amended).

Arrangement claimed in claims should be illustrated aptly.

Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression

meansetc.. means should be deleted from claims or aptly reworded.

(12) Reference to accompanying drawings should be given in the description in prescribed

manner.
(13)

Distinguishing features and advantages w.r.t prior art cited above should be

furnished in the description.

(14) Advantage over prior art should be provided in description.
(15)Dependent Claims are not clear in respect of the expression 'characterized in that', which
should be replaced by 'wherein.
(16) Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression further comprising.
Independent claim 18 does not have any advance technical feature over the claim 14.so
claim 18 and its dependent claim should be removed.
Nature and scope of the invention cannot be ascertained in view of number of independent
set of claims 1,14,18.

(17) Claims 6 - 12 lack unity of invention with independent claim 1 U/S 10(5) of the
Act.Independent claims should be properly cast in two part form with those features which in combination are
part of the prior art to be placed in the preamble.
Without pre- judice to earlier objection, in view of plurality of independent sets of claims the
nature and scope of the invention is not clearly definitive. They should be re-drafted to

incorporate all the inventive features in the characterised clause of principal claims and
subsidiary features in the dependent claims. The inventive features should be characterised
over prior art supplemented by reference numerals to enhance the intelligibility of claims.

(18) Claims 1-8 recite various method steps without disclosing what apparatus/structural
component carried out said steps. In absence any structural limitations, subject matter of
these claims is mere scheme and/or mental act and hence falls within scope of clause (m) of
section (3) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended). Therefore invention claimed in said claims
is not patentable.
(19) Claims 29-43 do not define any structural features of the machine readable medium/
processor rather they define computer instructions. These instructions are nothing but
computer program per se. hence subject matter of said claims falls within scope of clause (k)
of section (3) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended). Therefore invention claimed in said
claims is not patentable.
Claims are very large in number.
Claims filed in the national phase in India appear to be much different from those filed in
international phase. You are required to bring out the differences between the national & int.
phases by suitable underlining etc on a seperate copy of specification.

Give the prosecution details of application filing in epo and also give detail about that
why it is withdrawn f

In case the applicant decides to contest this report, the reasons therefor along with the the
technical significance thereof may please be indicated in the response communication.

Complete specification (including claims) show considerable amendments when compared

with the international phase specification. Claims should ordinarily be same/almost the same
as international phase claims. Copy of claims highlighting, by underlines etc., the said
voluntary changes should be filed for appropriate examination.

Priority application has only 3 claims. This instant application claims 4-11 are not fairly
based on the priority application claims. Further, Claims 12-15 are also not fairly based on
the priority application. Hence, claims 4-15 are not allowed under the Act.

Independent claims 1 and 6 are not in the two-part form , which in the present case would be
appropriate, with those features known in combination from the prior art being placed in the
preamble and the remaining features being included in the characterising part .
If, however, the applicant is of the opinion that the two-part form would be inappropriate,
reasons should be provided.
Further, Form-13 with necessary fees should be filed for making voluntary amendment of the
claims.
However, without prejudice
Form-13 dated 8/12/2008 has been filed for voluntary amendment made in the drawing.
Since, the amendment proposed has not been highlighted by the applicant. Form-13 in this
regard may not be allowed.

claims 1 and 10, as method claims, and claims 14 and 21, as apparatus
claims, have been drafted as separate independent claims, they appear to relate
effectively to the same subject-matter and to differ from each other only with regard to the
definition of the subject-matter for which protection is sought and/or in respect of the
terminology used for the features of that subject-matter. The aforementioned claims
therefore lack conciseness.
In case the applicant decides to amend the claims subsequent to this report, the same shall
be drafted afresh to include the technical advancement over the prior art as required u/s
2(1)j of the Patent"s Act. Please indicate in the response communication the support for the
claims in the original specification ,as required u/s 10(4) of the Act .Care shall be taken that
requirement S59(1) of the Act is also met. Please provide an additional copy of marked up
amendments (highlighting the amendments) where ever applicable.

Multiple independent claims lack succinctness. Independent claims should be suitably linked
with principal claim to make them clear, succinct and substantially definitive in accordance
with the requirements of section 10(5) of The Patents Act 1970 as amended by the Patents
(Amendment) Act 2005.

The features of dependent claims 2, 5 and 21 have already

been employed for the same purpose in a similar system and a
similar method, see document 03, abstract, page 3, lines 3-7 .
It would therefore be obvious to the person skilled in the art, to
apply these features with corresponding effect to a system and
a method according to document 01, thereby arriving at a
system and a method according to claims 2, 5 and 21.
Independent claims 1 and 18 are not in two-part , which in the
present case would be appropriate, with those features known
in combination from the prior art being placed in the preamble
and with the remaining features being included in the
characterising part .

Claim .is not clearly defined. The claim attempt to define the
subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely
amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the
technical features necessary for achieving this result.
Independent claims 1 and 18 are not in two-part , which in the
present case would be appropriate, with those features known in
combination from the prior art being placed in the preamble and
with the remaining features being included in the characterising
part .

Qiukie examination .
Any addition or alteration in the GPA should be endorsed therein. The simple striking out of
any name by pen or addition of any name by mere typing in the said instrument makes the
document untenable to be recorded as a legal document.
The applicant service address is not same in form 1 and GPA .so ,the form 13 should be
filed.
GPA as filed lacks clarity, and name of authorized signatory is different from that given in
Form-1. Consideration to this instant application is deferred until aforesaid is clarified.

29) Name of the signatory should be mentioned below the signature of agent in form 1, 3, 5
and form18.

The annexure to form 3 should be submitted with necessary petition.

Fresh form 1,2,3 ,5 should be filed with the new applicant name .
Duplicate copy of form 5 should be submitted.

Fresh Form 1 should be submitted after removing irrelevant entries from" priority particulars
field".
You are advised to file fresh specification(s) on sheets of A4 (29.7 cm x 21 cm) size paper in
prescribed manner.

30) Proof of Right has to be filed along with proper authentication of inventors with petition
u/r 10 of Patents Act.
31) Priority document should be submitted as mentioned in form 1.

32) Preamble to claims should be amended to read as "We claim" in the specification.

33) Name and signature of agent should be given at the end of all forms, drawing sheets and at
the end of claims in prescribed manner.

34) Names of all signatories in all documents submitted at this office should be given
below their signatures.
35) Proof of Right has to be filed along with proper authentication of inventors with
petition u/r 10 of Patents Act.
36) The declaration by ( timothy G. Gorbatoff ) shows there has been change of name
twice of ( general motors corporation) whereas you have filed a single form 6.
37) The attachment A is received but the original or notarized copy of the assignment
should be submitted . The place of execution should be furnished therein. The
designation of the signatories to the deed should be furnished therein. The name
and address of the witnesses before whome the deed was executed should be given
in the deed without which the deed is incomplete.

38) Name and address of applicant and inventor are not supported by the PCT application.
39) PA should be filed afresh in prescribed manner with updated address of service as given
in Form-1, and should be filed with Form-13.

40) Two Applicants are mentioned in Form-1. While, only one Applicants name is mentioned in
the GPA, Form-2, Form-3, Form-18 and Drawings. You are required to clarify this anomaly
immediately.

Quikie tech objections

1) Subject matter of claims do not constitute an invention U/S 2(1)(j) of the Act. See for
instance, US 4588040, US 6209672, US 7392871 etc.

2) Does not constitute an invention u/s 2(1)(j)of Patents Act.Subject matter is not novel
in view of document as url
http://www.ndt.net/article/nde-india2006/files/tp-05-pap.pdf
(published by Indian Society for non destructive testing , Hyderabad chapter, 7- 9th
Dec. 2006)Moreover , this invention already in public domain, hence cannot be
allowed.(Citation attached herewith)

(18)The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the "
" as explained in claim 1 and 5 must be shown in drawing.

(19)The term "without usage of any raw materials" in claim 1, 5 and in abstract
is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
(20) The term "without usage of any raw materials" is not defined by the claim,
the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite
degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised
of the scope of the invention.No machine or structure can be
created/constructed, operated, and maintained without the use of
materials.
(21)Description provides for the use "circular movement force for creating
energy ", but,since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the

method/process, it is unclear whatmethod/process applicant is intending to

encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merelyrecites a use without any
active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
(22) The applicant is requested to furnish a working model of the claimed
invention for thepurpose of demonstrating operability, utility and patentability.

(23) Complete specification is not properly drafted and does not disclose the
best method of performing the invention (section 10(4)(b)) i.e.
1)

No background art/prior art are

provided in the description due to which inventive
nature of the invention is not clear. Hence specification should be redrafted including the reference
in the background art.Distinguishing features w.r.t
the description to ascertain the inventive nature of the invention.

prior art

should be furnished in

2) The object of the invention is not clear.

3) The main embodiments of the invention must be define rather than
method of operation /repair.
4) Inventive nature of the invention is absent.
(24) In claim 2 "partially composed of material " makes the claim ambiguous and
inventor should disclose what does partially composed means.

(25) claim 4 ,refers to claim 2 or 3. this is ambiguous as whether claim 4 is referring to

claim 3 or claim 4 , and if it is referring to one feature of the invention the why the
reference to both the claims of given . It should be aptly reworded.

(26) claim 3 ,refers to claim 1 or 2 , claim 4 refers to claim 3 and then claim 4 to claim 3.
such type of drafting of claims make the invention unnecessary complicated to decipher
the invention and ambiguous . All dependent claims should refer to principal claim . It
should be aptly reworded.

(27)Claim is omnibus

and vague claim must be deleted.

(28)Claims 9 14 are not allowed under the Act as these claim computer program, code,
and storage medium for the said program or code.

(29)Descriptiuon given on page 4 , under title object of the invention , drafting

ofdescription using repeating phrases yet another object of the invention is
..should not be used and all the objects of the invention should be given in
a simple form . futher the description is silent on how to achieve these
objectives. Applicant need to elaborate and explain further how theses
objectives are achieved and how is it different from prior art.

(30)

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.

At the time of entry into the national phase in India, the applicant has replaced the original
claims 1-30 with revised/amended set of claims 1-15 and submitted a form 13 for the same.
According to section 57 read with section 10(4A) of the Patents Act the national phase
application should be same as in PCT. Further, the fee should be calculated accordingly and
balance of fee should be paid. The allowance of form 13 is subjected to the satisfaction of the
above.
Without prejudice to above, the examination is being carried out for the 15 claims as
submitted in national phase Application.
Regarding novelty and inventive step this office bears the same view as the IPRP.The relevant
portions of the cited prior art documents and corresponding argumentations as given in the
said IPRP are detrimental to the patentability of the claims. Therefore the present set of
claims is not allowable u/s 2(1)(j) of the Act

BHEL common objections..(formal)

Drawings should be filed in prescribed manner U/R 15 of the Patent Rules.
(2) Blank spaces in the specification and irrelevant matter should be scored out.

1) The drawings must show every

feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "
explained in claim 1 and 5 must be shown in drawing.

" as

2) The term "without usage of any raw materials" in claim 1, 5 and in abstract

is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.

The term "without usage of any raw materials" is not defined by the claim, the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite
degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised
of the scope of the invention.No machine or structure can be
created/constructed, operated, and maintained without the use of
materials.

3)Description provides for the use "circular movement force for creating
energy ", but,since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the
method/process, it is unclear whatmethod/process applicant is intending to
encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merelyrecites a use without any
active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
4) disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. Without source
of mechanical energy,the machine cannot operate and convert said
mechanical energy to electrical energy.
5)The applicant is requested to furnish a working model of the claimed
invention for thepurpose of demonstrating operability, utility and patentability.

Keywords
1) Stator , rotor
2) battery
3) electric lines
4) axial gap
5) stator assembly
6) rotor assembly
7) engine
8)
depatis net https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?
window=1&space=menu&content=index&action=einsteiger

Espacenet,wipo,google patent search,orbit

Google scholars

Fees calculated hereunder may reveal that the balance of fee of.is to to be
paid by applicants agent

Divisional Application no. 8475/delnp/2007 does not meet the requirements of section 16 of Patent Act as
ameneded Patent Act 2005.
Method claims 3,5,7,9 and 12 for recording and reproducing are not allowable as such since claims cover only
functional part associated with the apparatus for the same.

Fees
Indian Patent Law provides a time limit of 31 months from
the priority date to file in india< 31 months
Difference between conv date and app date in india< 12 months
Fees ..initial= 4000..1000 by applicant
1+ priority =4000 1000 by applicant
30+ pages =400100 by applicant
10+ claims =800200 by applicant
If examination for application form filled after 48 months of filing the application then it is deemed to be dead case.
Form 6 money= 2000
If Another form 6 then again money = 2000.also ..check CBR number for each money
Form 13 is for clerical and technical amendments
Form 6 for change in nmaes in proof of authority.

Form-2
Form-2 should be filed as first page of specification in prescribed manner as stipulated in sub Rule 7 of
Rule 20 of Patent Rule 2003 and Patent (amendment) Rule 2006.

Or
Form-2 should be filed as first page of specification in prescribed manner as stipulated in sub Rule
7 of Rule 20 of Patent Rule 2003 and Patent (amendment) Rule 2006. Further, fees of Rs. 400/- in
respect of additional page should be submitted immediately along with necessary petition and fees, failing
which the instant application shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Actanddeemed to be withdrawn as per Rule 22
of Patent Rule 2003.

GPA
Documents filed in the office should be signed by authorized agent .In the present application documents are
not signed by authorized agent as given inGPA (..). You are required to explain this anomaly .
Or

Or

file new pa or new documents (form 1 , 3,5 etc.) signed by authorized agent along with necessary
petition and fees, failing which the instant application shall proceed U/S 142(3) of the Act.
Or

Fresh GPA should be filled by the applicant.

GPA should be signed by authorized agent.
GPA as filed should either be in original or duly attested.

Proof of Right
Assignment or Proof of Right from inventors in favour of the Applicant should be filed with necessary petition U/R 137
read with Section 7(2) of the Act.

If the proof of right is not

filed along with the application, it shall be filed
within a period of six months from the date of filing
of the application. Otherwise, the applicant shall file
the same along with a petition under Rule 137/138.
Or
The Assignment discloses four inventors, while Form-1 and Form-5 mention only three
inventors (excluding Eric M. Rask). You are required to explain this anomaly and consideration to the instant
application is deferred until then.

The attachment A is not found with the deed of assignment. The original or notarized copy of
the assignment should be submitted. The place of execution of the assignment should be
given. The designation of the signatories to the deed should be furnished therein. The
addresses of the witnesses before whom the deed was executed should be given in the deed.
So both the Form 6s are not allowable.
The declaration by Timothy G. Gorbatoff is not an agreement or an assignment. An
agreement or assignment should be submitted under section 20(1) of the Patents Act and
rule 34(2) of The Patents Rules for substitution of applicant.

Signature
Name and signature of agent should be given in all forms, drawing sheets and at the end
of claims in prescribed manner.

Or
Name of signatory should be given at the end of all the forms , drawing sheets and at the
end of claims in prescribed manner.

Or
Name and signature should be given on page 40 at the end of claims of
specification in prescribed manner.

the

Name and signature of agent should be given in drawing sheets and at the end of claims in
prescribed manner i.e. Drawings should be filed as per rule 15 of Patents Rules, 2003.

Priority document
Priority document should be submitted as mentioned in form 1.
Priority document PCT/ IB/304 should be filed as per rule 21(1) of Patent Rules, 2003.

Only one priority document is filed, while this instant application claims two priorities. You are required to clarify this
anomaly and consideration to the instant application is deferred until then.

Immediately file the priority documents failing which the claim for the priority
shall be disregarded.

The present application claims the priority of application PCT/FR06/050022 (DATA VERIFIED
FROM WIPO) while the form 1 submitted in the office claims the priority of PCT/US06/050022
Correct the form 1 with necessary petition and fees towards the clerical error.(section 78 rule 122)

English translation of the priority document should be filed as per rule 21(2) of the patents Rules-1970.
Or
English translation of Priority document should be filed as per rule 21(1) of Patent Rules, 2003 within
31 months from the date of priority. Since the 31 months time has elapsed, now you have to submit
the English translation of priority document within 3 months , failing which the claim for the priority
shall be disregarded for the purposes of the Act as per sub rule 3 of Rule 21 of The Patents Rules 2003.

Blank spaces in the specification and irrelevant matter should be scored out.

We claim

Preamble to claims should be amended to read as "We claim" in the specification.

Forms
The inventor name should be mentioned in form 1 and form 5, not in the attached sheet.
Name of signatory should be given below the signature of agent in form 18.

Form 1 ,3,5 AND 18 should be filed according to section 7(1).All the entries
in the prescribed form should be indicated properly and in proper format ,
you may write NOT APPLICABLE to that column which you want to leave but it
must be present in the form (should not be deleted).

Form 6
for change in applicant address form 6 must be provided and form 13 should also be provided if change of
name of applicant also changes and form 6 annexure a should consist of application no. of given
file.

unnesessory general objections

The duplicate copy of the Form 1 isnot signed.

Nationality of Applicant on Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3 ,form 5

should be given.

Updated annexure to form 3 should be filed.

Date of stamp on form 3 should be < 6 months from date of filling of application in india. Form 3 schedule has
been filed on 13/10/2006, which is beyond the prescribed time limit.
Declaration by the Applicant in form-1 is given in terms of the priority which is mentioned in para-5, but actually

priority is not taken.

Application number should be mentioned in form-5. Declaration of inventorship should be given in form 5.
Reference numerals should be given in the claim.
You are requested to provide break
on a separate sheet.

up of fees in respect of additional claims and pages of the complete specification

Complete specification should be filed in prescribed manner.

You are requested to clearly indicate theamendements/corrections carried out in the specification,
if any to facilitate examination

Address of the applicant in the form-3 should be provided. this address should be same as
address on the cover of application.

Details regarding the search and/or examination report including claims of the application
allowed, as referred to in Rule 12(3) of the Patent Rules in respect of same or substantially the same
invention filed in all countries outside India, along with appropriate translation where
applicable, should be submitted within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of this
communication as provided under section 8(2) of the Indian Patents Act.

Foreign filing particulars of all applications made in foreign countries should be filed with necessary Petition
under Section 8(1) of the Act.

Tech. examination

In view of the following documents

D1:Document

Claims are not novel and inventive w.r.t. D1.

Document D2 teaches Claims are not novel and inventive w.r.t. D2.
Document D3 also describes similar type of invention and teachesClaims are not novel and inventive w.r.t. D3.

It is obvious for a person skilled in the art to produce the present invention by combining effects of the above documents.
Hence the present invention is not novel and falls under 2(1)(j) of the patent act .

Abstract objection

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).
or

Abstract does not sufficiently provide technical information of the invention. The abstract should be
prepared as the instructions given in rule 13(7)(b), 13(7)(c) and 13(7)(d) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (as
amended).
patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and
should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a
basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be
directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old
apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure
of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions,
wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set
forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves
modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred
modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the

invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.

Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:

( 1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;

(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
is noted that the claimed invention is directed to a method. The examiner suggests
It

amending the abstract to reflect same.

Claim 6 and 7 are not clear in respect of expression "as herein described with
reference to accompanying drawings". These statements make the claims ambiguous
and vague.

Abstract should be filed in the prescribed manner as per rule 13(7) of The Patents Rules. It
should indicate the technical information of the invention and should have following
elements
(a) Purpose of the invention
(b) Scientific principle and foundation on which the invention is based
(c) Brief description of the invention
(d) Clear and simplified line diagrams indicating the names of parts of the device and also
indicating the process which to be carried out by using the device
Title does not sufficiently indicate the subject matter of the invention for which protection is sought. Title of the invention should
disclose specific features of the invention as required under rule 13(7)(a) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended).

Title
Claims are redundant in nature hence must be deleted. claims to
same features as claimed in claims 12-16.

define the

The amended claims 1-9 are not clearly worded as indicated therein and the expression like " more
specifically", "in any of the afore mentioned claims". As mentioned in the response of the agent, the claims
have been amended in correspondence with the US granted claims, but the claims are not amended as such.
Hence the claims shall be amended properly to bring out the inventive features clearly.

Claims are drafted in serially dependent manner( i.e. claim 2 depend on claim 1
,claim 3 on claim 2 and so on) such type of drafting makes the invention
difficult to understand .Hence such practice of claims drafting should be
avoided.
Multiple dependency of claims are not allowed. It makes the scope and boundary of the
invention broad . Drafting of claims should be done in such a manner that only 1
independent claim will highlight the all essential features of the invention while all other
claims will depends on main claim1 and explain the individual features to make
invention more clear ,definitive and within the well define boundary and scope of the
specification disclosed.
Independent claims should be properly cast in two part form with those features which in combination are part
of the prior art to be placed in the preamble.

Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression as indicated therein.
Due to plurality of Independent claims nature and scope of the invention is not clear. Independent claims also
lack unity of invention as defined U/S 10(5) of the Act. You are advised to submit revised claims for further
consideration.

In Claim 10 , expression " if delivered thereto " is not clear in its meaning and should be aptly reworded.
also in claim 12,19 and 20 expression " further wherein " should be reworded.

Claims 1-9 are not allowed as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission
amounting to a gap
between the steps also being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as
the invention.

1. In claim 2 "partially composed of material " makes the claim ambiguous and inventor
should disclose what does partially composed means.

2.claim 4 ,refers to claim 2 or 3. this is ambiguous as whether claim 4 is referring to claim

3 or claim 4 , and if it is referring to one feature of the invention the why the reference to
both the claims of given . It should be aptly reworded.

claim 3 ,refers to claim 1 or 2 , claim 4 refers to claim 3 and then claim 4 to claim 3. such
type of drafting of claims make the invention unnecessary complicated to decipher the
invention and ambiguous . All dependent claims should refer to principal claim . It should
be aptly reworded.

3. Claims do not sufficiently define the alleged invention.

4 Advantage over prior art should be provided in description.

Claims 3 and 4 should give reference to claim 1.

Complete specification is not properly drafted and does not disclose the best
method of performing the invention (section 10(4)(b)) i.e.
5)

No background art/prior art are

provided in the description due to which inventive
nature of the invention is not clear. Hence specification should be redrafted including the reference
in the background art.Distinguishing features w.r.t
the description to ascertain the inventive nature of the invention.

prior art

should be furnished in

6) The object of the invention is not clear.

7) The main embodiments of the invention must be define rather than
method of operation /repair.
8) Inventive nature of the invention is absent.
Specification is unable to define what is invention rather ends up in explaining
the method .
Multiple independent claims with overlapping scope is not allowed. You are advised to restrict one
independent claim in each category. In addition the application claim should be reduced to one claim as
per office procedure in vogue.

Claims 2, 4 and 5 should not use expression as " according to claim ...." and should use " as claimed in
claim ...." or another suitable and exact expression.
1.

2.

3.

Dependent Claims are not clear in respect of the expression 'characterized

should be replaced by 'wherein.

Dependent Claims are not clear in respect of the expressions "include"

comprising.

and

in that', which

"including", which should be replaced by

Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression

further

comprising. It should be deleted from claims or aptly reworded.

4.
5.

Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression

reworded.

meansetc.. means should be deleted from claims or aptly

6.

Inappropriate words like substantially should be deleted from the claims.

7.

predermined

8.

value is not clearly defined in CLAIM 4.

Claims and are not clear in respect of expression as herein described with
reference to accompanying drawings. These statements make the claims
ambiguous and vague. Also said expression makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter
for which protection is sought and hence do not fulfill the requirements of section 10(4)(c) of
the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).

9.

Claims
etc.

are not

clear in

respect of the expressions

10. Claims are not clear in respect of the expressions "

monitors.
11.

Claim should be further explicated in view of the aforesaid.

co-ordinator", current and voltage

Claims are not clear in respect of the various modules.

12. The claim . is not allowed in view of its lacking

scope.

in definitiveness and

13. Claim is omnibus and vague claim must be deleted.

14.
Claims are unclear w.r.t. ANY ONE OF THE CLAIMS 12 TO 15
15. Independent claim-1 describes elementwhich is not mentioned in the drawing.

16.
Claim 14 is dependent on 12 OR 13 while 13 is dependent on
12 . Claim 14 must depend only on one independent claim .

Novel/inventive features should be characterized in principal claim.

Claims

do not sufficiently

define the alleged invention.

The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims
are directed.

Distinguishing features and advantages w.r.t prior art cited above should be
furnished in the description.

Invention claimed in claims lacks in clarity. Claims are expressed in a vague and unclear manner. The
applicant is therefore advised to draft a new set of claims. During revision care should be taken not to add any subject matter
which extends beyond content of the application as originally filed.

The specification should be redrafted including the reference in the

background art.

Drafting of claims is not proper because of which the nature & scope of the invention can
not be ascertained.

The vague and imprecise statement in the description in the last paragraph implies that the subjectmatter for which protection is sought may be different to that defined by the claims, thereby resulting
in a lack of clarity of the claims when the description is used to interpret the claims. Such statement
should therefore be amended to remove this inconsistency
Reference to accompanying drawings should be given in the description in prescribed manner.
Claims are not fully supported by preceding description.you are requested to give your observation
claimwise.

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
The drawings are objected because the blank boxes shown should labeled as to their
function, for example: elements 3-5 in Fig. 1, and elements 11 and 13-17 as described in the
specification. Any structuraL detail that is essential for a proper
understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing.

3(k) objections

Claims fail within the scope of section

Claims 17 and 18 fall within the scope of section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 in absence of the technical
features disclosed therein and therefore liable to be non patentable.

3(k) of the act in absence of any technical features

disclosed therein.

The claims 23- 35 seem to protect a method for automatically configuring a

power protection and restoration device comprising the steps of

computer

algorithmic steps which fall under section 3(K) of the Patents Act. Hence
the subject matter of the claims are not allowable under section 3(K) of the
Patents Act. The method claims 23-35 are not allowable under section 3(K) of
thePatents Act and these claims shall be deleted.

Lack of unity

Claims lack unity of invention from independent claim 1 U/S 10(5) of the Act.
.

Claims 9 - 23 lack

unity of invention with independent claim 1 U/S 10(5) of the Act.

Nature and scope of the invention can not 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.
Details regarding the search and/or examination report including claims of the
application allowed, as referred to in Rule 12(3) of the Patent Rule,2003, in respect of
same or substantially the same invention filed in all countries out side India, along
with appropriate translation where applicable, should be submitted within a period of
Six months from the date of receipt of this communication as provided under section
8(2) of the Indian Patents Act.
Claims 18 to 20 lack unity of invention with the principle claim and other dependent
claims U/S 10(5) of the Act.
claims 1 to 7 and claims 8 to 17 and claims 18 to 20 seems to define different different
inventions in a single application. hence 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.

Revised Patent specification filed by the applicants agent should be uploaded in HTML
format and other entries relating to this application to be updated as required. ADS and
representation U/S 25(1) if filed should be put up to the examiner for verification.

Claims and do not sufficiently define the invention; they do not

appear to solve any technical problem rather formulated to

Claims not definitive and not clear

present mere scheme or rule. The features of

the claim as worded define a method of providing service of
which a protocol is as mentioned by the features of the claim. The
implementation of same by computer means cannot be envisaged
as a technical matter unless the features of the claim itself are
technical in nature.

Invention claimed in claim1 does not sufficiently define the

invention; constructional features of the apparatus
should be characterized, the so called sections mentioned in
the claims acclaims functional features, no hardware
constructional features can be envisaged out of it.
The invention and its operation or use and the

method by which it is to be performed is not fully

and particularly described in the complete
specification. The complete specification should disclose
the best method of performing the Invention, which is
known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim

Claims not definitive and not clear

protection.

The Drawings referred to in the specification should

be prepared in accordance with the instructions
contained in the Rule 15 of the Patent Rules, 2003(as
amended in 2006).

Drawings

If any amendment is necessitated in the complete

specification then it is required to clearly identify

Mark-up-copy

(submission of marked copy) the amendments

carried out and to indicate the portion (page no and
line no) of the complete specification as filed on which
these amendments are based on. Further the pages wherever
amendments are carried out need to be freshly typed on
white pages and to be filed in duplicate.

The size of the font used in the complete specification

should be increased in order to make the complete
specification legible.
References in the form of application numbers should
be deleted or replaced with the relevant publication
numbers if the application was published at the time
of filing of the PCT application. Reference to US
provisions should be removed from the complete
specification.

Font

Claims 18-21 recite various means. These claims are not

clear in respect of structural features of the said means.
Also these claims are not supported by the description.
In absence of such structural features the claims are
indefinite and do not satisfy the requirement of section
10(4)(c) of the Act.

Means+functions

The complete specification should be prepared

Rule-9

following

the

margin

References

requirement

prescribed in rule 9.Further any fee need to be paid

for extra pages resulting there in should be paid.
Claims 12 and 13 are not clear in respect of expression as

Omnibus-claims

herein described with reference to accompanying

drawings. These statements make the claims ambiguous
and vague. Also said expression makes it difficult to
ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought
and hence do not fulfill the requirements of section 10(4)(c)
of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
The vague and imprecise statement in the description in the
last
paragraph
implies
that the subject-matter for which protection is sought may
be different to that defined by the claims, thereby resulting
in a lack of clarity of the claims when the description is
used to interpret the claims. Such statement should
therefore be amended to remove this inconsistency.
Claim 8 does not sufficiently define the invention; the
essential features of the method apart from the
characterizing features are not specified in the claim in
absence of which the claim becomes indefinitive and hence
not allowable.

The various definitions of the invention

given in independent Claims1,4,15 and 29
are such that the claims as a whole are not

Spirit et. Vague statement

Multiple independent claims

clear and concise and plurality of

independent claims makes it difficult to
determine the matter for which protection
is sought.
Further details regarding foreign filing
filed vide letter dated 30.10.2008 cannot
be taken on record as said details

Form 3 Beyond prescribed period:

have not been submitted within

prescribed period as mentioned in
rule 12(2) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (as
amended).
Claims 1-8 recite various method steps
without
disclosing
what
apparatus/structural component carried out
said steps. In absence any structural
limitations, subject matter of these claims

3(m) in absence of structural

limitations:

mere scheme and/or mental

act and hence falls within scope of
is

clause (m) of section (3) of the Patents

Act, 1970 (as amended). Therefore
invention claimed in said claims is not
patentable.
Claims 12 and 17 are not clear as the
purpose or object of the claimed apparatus
is not mentioned in the preamble of the
claims.
Present set of claims defines a plurality of
distinct
inventions
as
follow:
Group (1): Claims --Mention
the
inventive
feature(s)
Group (2): Claims --Mention the inventive features(s)
The inventions listed in these two groups
define separate inventions as stated above
and are not linked so as to form single
general inventive concept as defined u/s
10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970(as
amended).
The relative term --- used in claims --- has

Object:

Unity of Invention:

Clarity:

no well-recognized meaning and leaves

the reader in doubt as to the meaning of
the technical features to which it refers,
thereby rendering the definition of the
subject-matter of said claims unclear.
Voluntary amendment in respect of
addition of claim 22 is not allowable
under section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970
(as amended).

Invention claimed in claim1 does not

sufficiently define the invention;
constructional features of the
apparatus should be characterized,
the so called sections mentioned in
the claims acclaims functional
features, no hardware constructional
features can be envisaged out of it.

Section 59:

Claims not definitive and not clear

The invention and its operation

or use and the method by which
it is to be performed isnot fully
and particularly described in
the complete specification. The
complete specification should
disclose the best method of
performing the Invention, which
is known to the applicant and for
which he is entitled to claim
protection.
The vague and imprecise statement in the
description in the last paragraph implies
that the subject-matter for which

protection is sought may be

different to that defined by the
claims, thereby resulting in a lack of
clarity of the claims when the description
is used to interpret the claims. Such
statement should therefore be amended to

Spirit et. Vague statement

remove this inconsistency.

Claim 8 does not sufficiently define the
invention; the essential features of the
method apart from the characterizing
features are not specified in the claim in
absence of which the claim becomes
indefinitive and hence not allowable.
The various definitions of the invention given in
independent Claims1,4,15 and 29 are such that the claims
as a whole are not clear and concise and plurality of

Multiple independent claims

it difficult to
determine the matter for which
protection is sought.
independent claims makes

Claims 1-8 recite

various method

3(m) in absence of structural

limitations:

steps without disclosing what

apparatus/structural component carried out said
steps. In absence any structural limitations,
subject matter of these claims is mere scheme
and/or mental act and hence falls within scope of
clause (m) of section (3) of the Patents Act, 1970
(as amended). Therefore invention claimed in
said claims is not patentable.
Claims 12 and 17 are not clear as the

purpose
or object of the claimed apparatus is

Object:

not mentioned in the preamble of the claims.

Present set of claims defines a plurality of distinct Unity of Invention:
inventions as follow:
Group (1): Claims --Mention the inventive feature(s)
Group (2): Claims --Mention the inventive features(s)
The inventions listed in these two

groups

define separate inventions as stated

above and are not linked so as to form single
general inventive concept as defined u/s 10(5) of
the Patents Act, 1970(as amended).
The relative term --- used in claims --- has

no
well-recognized meaning and leaves
the reader in doubt as to the meaning
of the technical features to which it
refers, thereby rendering the definition of the
subject-matter of said claims unclear.

Clarity:

Voluntary amendment in respect of addition of

Section 59:

claim 22 is not allowable under section 59 of the Patents

Act, 1970 (as amended).
Petition for condoning delay in submission

of prior-

foreign filing details as required U/S 8(1) of

the Act should be submitted.

Claims 1-6 and 9 do not sufficiently define

the invention; they do not appear to solve
any technical problem rather formulated to
present mere scheme or rule. The features
of the claim as worded define a method of
providing service of which a protocol is as
mentioned by the features of the claim. The
implementation of same by computer
means cannot be envisaged as a technical
matter unless the features of the claim itself
are technical in nature.
Invention claimed in claim1 does not
sufficiently define the invention;
constructional features of the apparatus
should be characterized, the so called
sections mentioned in the claims acclaims
functional features, no hardware
constructional features can be envisaged
out of it.
The invention and its operation or use and
the method by which it is to be performed
isnot fully and particularly described in
the complete specification. The complete
specification should disclose the best
method of performing the Invention, which
is known to the applicant and for which he
is entitled to claim protection.
The invention and its operation or use and
the method by which it is to be performed is
not fully and particularly described in the
complete specification. The complete
specification should disclose the best
method of performing the invention, which
is known to the applicant and for which he
is entitled to claim protection.
The description of the method or the
instructions for working the invention in the

Claims not definitive and not clear

Claims not definitive and not clear

complete specification should by

themselves be sufficient to enable a person
in India possessing average skill and
average knowledge of the art to which the
invention relates to work the invention and
to obtain the results claimed for the
invention.
In view of the defective description the
application is likely to be post-dated to the
date on which you would file the fresh
specification meeting the above
requirements. It is open to you to convert
the complete specification filed by you
into a provisional specification by making
a request under sub-section (3) of Section
9 of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended in
2003 and filing a fresh complete
specification
The Drawings referred to in the
specification should be prepared in
accordance with the instructions contained
in the Rule 15 of the Patent Rules, 2003(as
amended in 2006).

Drawings

If any amendment is necessitated in the

complete specification then it is required to
clearly identify (submission of marked
copy) the amendments carried out and to
indicate the portion (page no and line no)
of the complete specification as filed on
which these amendments are based on.
Further the pages wherever amendments
are carried out need to be freshly typed on
white pages and to be filed in duplicate.

Mark-up-copy

size of the font

The
used in the complete
specification should be increased in order to make the
complete specification legible.
Further details regarding foreign filing filed vide letter dated
30.10.2008 cannot be taken on record as said

details

Font

Form 3 Beyond prescribed

period:

have not been submitted within

prescribed period as mentioned in rule 12(2) of
the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended).

the examination is carried out by Mr. Ashlesh M. and thereafter supervised. Put up for consideration.
s.k. gue phone no. 9062060992.d.p.ahuja and co. agent.
For doing classification classification
Use module id sudip
Password shift+(1 2) Patent21
Select option convention
Use site..https://www3.wipo.int/ipccat/faces/pages/Start.jsp.to know the classification code
and fill in space afterthat fill field of invention by seeing the title of the invention.

the following rationales establish a prima facie case of obviousness.

The rationales are:
(a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;
(b) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(c) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for
improvement to yield predictable results;
(d) "Obvious to try"- choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(e) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for us in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;

Keywords
9) Stator , rotor
10)battery
11) electric lines

Espacenet,wipo,google patent search,orbit

Google scholars

examination has been done and put up for controller's consideration.

The easiest and fastest way

A.Subject matter of claims do not constitute an invention u/s 2(1)j of the act . see for instance

and prior arts . in view of

Etc
2 .independent claim 1 does not envince the inventive step in absence of characterization of the alleged invention.
3.claims do not sufficiently define the alleged invention.
4. claim claiming storage medium having a computer programme is not allowed under the act.
5. claims

lack unity of invention with independent claim 1 u/s 10(5) of the act.

6. claim 1 is not clear in respect of expression electrical storage device , sensor less position sencing technique, offset
parameter, sensd and derived rotor positions etc, which should be further explicated in respect of the alleged invention.
7.The technical features of the claims should be referenced with numerals in parenthesis to enhance the intelligibility of the claims.

B. 1. Distinguishing

features w.r.t prior art cited above should be furnished in the

description.
2. Title does not sufficiently indicate the subject matter of the invention for which protection is sought. Title of the invention
should disclose specific features of the invention as required under rule 13(7)(a) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended).
C 1. Arrangement claimed in claims should be illustrated aptly in the specification and drawings

1.

Independent claims should be properly cast in two part form with those features which in combination
are part of the prior art to be placed in the preamble.

2.

Dependent claims are not clear in respect of the expression as indicated therein.

3.

claims 1 to 7 and claims 8 to 17 and claims 18 to 20 seems to define different

different inventions in a single application. hence 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.
The technical features of the claims should be referenced with numerals in
parenthesis to enhance the intelligibility of the claims.

4.

5.

Reference to foreign patent applications should be replaced by Indian Specification.

IN /PCT/2001/01096/KOL

Following documents are required and the same is communicated to agent

1) Proof of submission of first examination report.
2) Copy of submission of first examination report.
3) All supplementary documents Form 1, Form 2 , Form 3, Form 5, and proof
of right, GPA etc.
Above information is communicated to the applicants agent and above
requirements should be send to this office within 10 of receipt of the letter for
speedy approval for grant of patent.

399/kol/2005
Sir,
I am to invite a reference to your letter dated 9 march , 2012 , on the above
mentioned subject and to inform you as follows

Following documents are required

1) Fresh form 2 with description and claims .
2) You are offered hearing under section 15 of the Patents act on
before the controller to meet the objections and clarify issues within the
provision of the act.
Above information is communicated to the applicants agent and above
requirements should be send to this office within 10 days of receipt of the letter
for speedy approval for grant of patent.

1247/kolnp/2004
Sir,

Following documents are required

1) A copy Assignment has to be submitted .
2) You are offered hearing under section 15 of the Patents act on
before the controller to meet the objections and clarify issues within the
provision of the act.
Above information is communicated to the applicants agent and above
requirements should be send to this office within 10 days of receipt of the letter
for speedy approval for grant of patent.

IN/PCT/2001/00268
Sir,
No reply has been found of the outstanding objection given given by the office on
date 18.11.2008, which is as follows
1) During the submission of documents in lien of reply to FER , the number of
claims have increased from 60(initially) to 87, which have definitely
broadened the scope of alleged invention. Multiple independent claims for
transmitting device , method of transmitting a mobile communication
system , transmitting method, etc. have made protection overlapping
among each other and moreover most of the claims appears to be
redundant.
However for clarity of claims granted US patent no. 7050410 can be
looked for.
2) You should submit abstract as per Rule 13(7).

Above information is communicated to the applicants agent and above

requirements should be send to this office within 10 of receipt of the letter
for speedy approval for grant of patent.

In view of the following documents

D1: KITOH et al. (US 20010038945, hereafter referred to as KITOH)
D2:KAPLIN et al. (US 20060172190, hereafter referred to as KAPLIN)
D3:NAKANISHI et al. (US 6521374, hereafter referred to as NAKANISHI)
It would have been obvious to combine tab assembly of KITOH with contact spring of
KAPLIN for connecting the electrode tabs to the terminal as doing so is thought by KAPLIN
and within the choice of practitioner in the art.
also it would have been obvious to combine tab assembly of NAKANISHI with contact
spring of KAPLIN for connecting the electrode tabs to the terminal as doing so is thought by
KAPLIN and within the choice of practitioner in the art.Hence the present invention is not
novel and falls under 2(1)(j) of the patent act.

To Sandeep (NiC)
there are some cases not showing in amended cases of emodule . pls resolve
1.5025/kolnp/2008
docket 8993
fer reply 9/7/2014
2.1078/kolnp/2009
docket 7083
fer reply 3/3/2014
3.2568/kolnp/2008
docket 7432
fer reply 14/6/2013
A. P srivastava objections
Address of Applicant as given in Form-1, Form-2, Form-3, Form-5, PA and Form-18 are
not consistent with that appearing in respect of the corresponding PCT application. It
should be rectified over filing of Form-13 with fees.
Form 1 and Form-3 should be filed in prescribed manner with Applicant"s nationality.
Proof of assignment with respect to this instant application no. 1655/del/2005 is
not filed in prescribed manner.

(1) Irrelevant portion shall be deleted and blank spaces shall be scored out in the
complete specification. Complete specification shall be renumbered and it shall

start from the first page of the specification.

(2) Claims should be prefaced with the words "I/We Claim" and end with date,
name and signature.

(2)
(3)

Abstract should be filed in prescribed manner U/R 13(7).

(4)

Subject matter of claims 1-18 does not constitute an Invention as defined in

section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Acts 1970 as it lack novelty and inventive
step in view of the cited documents D1,D2 and D3.
The technical features disclosed in the invention are found in the prior documents
D1(US2510230). Pl. see column 1, line 48 - column 2, line 7;
figure 1 ,
* column 2,line 2 - line 5 *
* column 2,line 52 - line 55 *
of document D1.hence,invention attracts 2(1)(j) of the act.As such the claim
should not allowed as per section 2(1)(j) of the act.
The technical features disclosed in the invention are found in the prior documents
D2(US4594722). See figs. 3 and 5-6; col. 5, lines 20-24 of document D2. As such
the claim should not allowed as per section 2(1)(j) of the act.
The technical features disclosed in the invention are found in the prior documents
D3(US4435816). see figs. 1-2; col. 4, line 42 of document D3. As such the claims
are not allowed as per section 2(1)(j) of the act.

(5)

Dependent Claims are not clear in respect of the expression "further

comprising","AT LEAST"

The Drawings referred to in the specification should be prepared in accordance

with the instructions contained in the Rule 15 of the Patent Rules, 2003 (as
amended in 2006)

(6)

The independent claim 11 is not clear in view of the undefined term "graphite
electrode and graphite body" therein, and lack unity with the principal claim 1 as
per section 10(5)of the act.
(7) (1) Principal claim should characterize and clearly bring out the inventive step.
(2) Technical features in the claims should be referenced with numerals in
parentheses to enhance intelligibility of claims.
(8) In case the applicant decides to amend the claims subsequent to this report, the
same shall be drafted afresh to include the technical advancement over the prior
art as required u/s 2(1)(j) of the Patent"s Act. Please indicate in the response
communication the support for the claims in the original specification, as required
u/s 10(4) of the Act. Care shall be taken that requirement S59(1) of the Act is also
met. Please provide an additional copy of marked up amendments (highlighting
the amendments) where ever applicable.
In case the applicant decides to contest this report, the reasons therefor along
with the the technical significance thereof may please be indicated in the
response communication.

(1) The main feature of this alleged invention is to obtain optimal solution taking into
consideration reactive power as parameter for the operation of a power generation
system having a plurality of power generation devices. However, the manner of
obtaining or determining the optimal solution is not clear in the claims. Further,
multiple independent claims are distinct with the principal claim lacking unity of
invention. Therefore, claims can not be allowed under sec. 10(5) of the Act.
(2) Without prejudice, the alleged inventive feature is to find the optimal solution
based on Mathematical model/ algorithm without teaching any technical features.
Hence, claims falls within the scope of sec. 3(k) of the Act.
(2)
Claims are not clear in respect of phrases, such as, "at least","further comprising",
"approximating", "means" etc.
(1) Inventive step cannot be ascertained in the absence of characterization of alleged
invention. Principal claim should characterize and clearly bring out the inventive
step.
(2) Technical features should be incorporated in the claims, and should be referenced
with numerals in parentheses to enhance intelligibility of claims.
(2) (1) The main feature of this alleged invention is to obtain optimal solution taking into
consideration reactive power as parameter for the operation of a power generation
system having a plurality of power generation devices. However, the manner of
obtaining or determining the optimal solution is not clear in the claims. Further,
multiple independent claims are distinct with the principal claim lacking unity of

invention. Therefore, claims can not be allowed under sec. 10(5) of the Act.
(2) Without prejudice, the alleged inventive feature is to find the optimal solution
based on Mathematical model/ algorithm without teaching any technical features.
Hence, claims falls within the scope of sec. 3(k) of the Act.
Omnibus claim 7 is not allowable in view of sec. 10.4.c of IPA as the same does not define the
scope of invention.
Search report/citations provided by other countries in which same or substantially the same
invention has been filed should be provided with your observations on the said
report/citations.
The invention is an artistic work or any other aesthetic creation and also the mere
arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning
independently of one another in a known way under section 3(i) and 3(f) of patent act
respectively ,hence not patentable.
This invention is not capable of any technical industrial useful application and hence not
patentable according to u/s 2(j) of the act.
The invention is mere arrangement or re-arrangement n of known devices each such as
lighting device, motor , controller functioning independently of one another in a known way
under 3(f) of patent act respectively ,hence not patentable.