Archived — Joint Liaison Committee -- Meeting #126

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Attendees

1. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of February 16, 2012

The minutes of the JLC meeting of February 16, 2012 were approved.

2. Business Arising

(from February 16, 2012 meeting)

4f Change of Title

(from Oct. 20, 2011 and February 16, 2012)

This item pertained to cases where there is a discrepancy between the title on the first page of the description and the title appearing in the petition of an application. S. Périard told the JLC that if at the time of filing a voluntary amendment is submitted pertaining to the title only, or a request to correct the title and a replacement page 1 of the description are submitted, the Office will process the change accordingly.

4b Voluntary submission of prior art and the Office's position

This item pertained to a question at the previous JLC meeting from K. Ledwell as to whether examiners could place on record a list of documentation that has been searched for a given application. L. Giardina responded that the Office has initiated a pilot project in which all of the divisions are participating, where examiners will be recording their searches. This includes recording search strings and databases consulted as well as documenting any earlier searches that have been considered. The project will continue through the summer, and it is expected that in the fall a decision will be made as to how to proceed in this regard.

4p Citing US law in a Canadian application

At the previous JLC meeting, Y. Bismilla had noted that there have been instances of Office Actions citing US case law. N. Tremblay announced that examiners have been informed not to cite US jurisprudence in their reports. If clients should continue to see any such citations, they may bring this to N. Tremblay's attention.

4k Translation of the word "Firm"

S. Périard announced that the word "firm" would be translated in French as "firme" in the next set of Agent Renewal letters to be issued in January of next year.

3. Ongoing Items

3a Corporate Feedback Mechanism report

The JLC was provided with an electronic copy of a report titled "Online Feedback Mechanism". The report provided an overview of the patent-related feedback received via the Online Feedback Mechanism on CIPO's external website for the period April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012. A. Lajoie encouraged IPIC members to use the Feedback Mechanism so that more data could be collected. The Office addresses each issue that is submitted.

A. Ionescu asked whether it would be possible to find out how much feedback is provided by agents versus non-agents. M. Paton indicated that there is a field in the online feedback mechanism form in which one can specify that they are an agent.

3b Service standards

An electronic copy of Patent Branch's "Service Commitment Results 2011-2012", "Production Volume Statistics 2011-2012" and "Inventory of applications awaiting a first action" for April, 2011-March, 2012 was provided to the members of the JLC. In addition, a new graph was provided titled "Advanced Examination". The new graph illustrated the average time to receive an Office Response for 2011-12 for Special Order and Green Technology applications.

3c Regulations Update

S. Vasudev provided the JLC with an update on Regulations and the Rules amending the Patent Rules.

Due to government's focus on other priorities, there has been limited movement in this regard since the previous JLC meeting. Package 2a directed to simplifying operational processes is currently in an advanced review stage, and the associated IT requirements are in the testing phase. Package 3a, which has a view to simplifying and clarifying final action procedures, and Package 3b, which is aimed at harmonizing the examination processes for qualification of patent and trademark agents, are moving up the line, with the Minister's Office requesting a briefing on these packages. IPIC members are thanked for their input and comments on the proposed practice notice for the correction of errors introduced in the naming of an applicant at the time of filing or national entry. It is expected that a final practice notice will be issued in the next few weeks.

3d Section 8 Update

S. Vasudev also provided a Section 8 update.

The inventory of Section 8 requests has seen a modest reduction, and it is not expected that a greater reduction in the inventory will be seen before the fall. The turnaround time for requests remains at 12 months, and clients should inquire with the Office regarding any requests pending greater than 12 months. C. Ledgley questioned the reason for the turnaround time being as high as 12 months, citing a particular case where a final fee was due the next day and a Section 8 request to change page 1 had been made. Her client would like to know if the Section 8 request will be accepted prior to paying the final fee. S. Vasudev explained that the Office is striving to make the process for reviewing Section 8 requests consistent, and that there continues to be a need for resources on the policy side for handling of complex requests. In general, the turnaround time is 12 months. However, in cases where there are more pressing issues of time, clients may contact S. Vasudev. Although requests are generally treated in order of the date the request was made, matters of urgency will be considered.

3f MOPOP Update

K. Campsall provided a MOPOP update.

Due to resource pressures and ongoing preparation of guidance relating to the post-FCA Amazon.com decision, the revision of the MOPOP chapters has experienced some delays.

The consideration of comments from the public consultation on MOPOP Chapter 14 (Unity of Invention) has been finalized and the Office is preparing to present the revised draft of the chapter to the Commissioner.

The internal consultation on MOPOP Chapter 15 (Novelty, Obviousness and Double-patenting) is complete and the Office is preparing for a public consultation later this year.

MOPOP Chapter 17 (Biotechnology) remains in the pre-internal consultation drafting stage. It is hoped that an internal consultation will also occur later this year.

The Office still plans to carry out a public consultation on MOPOP Chapter 21 (Final Actions) to run in parallel with the consultation in Canada Gazette I on Package 3a of the Rules amending the Patent Rules.

In regard to the consultation on the proposed practice guidance following the Amazon.com FCA decision, the Office is currently in the process of reviewing and analyzing all the feedback that was received and would like to thank IPIC members for their comments. The Office hopes to publish guidelines that best serve to clarify the Commissioner's interpretation of the decision and once an expected release date is known, it will be communicated.

3g PPH Update

K. Murphy provided a PPH update.

A new PPH pilot agreement between CIPO and the Israel Patent Office has been agreed to in principle by the two heads of office.

PPH request forms were updated recently with the Word version now being available. However, the Office has recently been informed that the format of the forms needs to be changed so that the forms are compliant with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Word documents are not in compliance with these guidelines. Nonetheless, the Office will ensure that the .pdf forms that result from this process will be savable so that record copies can be maintained and worked on over time. Clients are asked to ensure that they are using the most updated forms for the sake of consistency and error reduction.

The JLC was also provided with an electronic version of the PPH update indicating the number of PPH requests received as of April 30, 2012 as well as PPH examination statistics as of April 30, 2012.

A. Zahl wondered if there was any talk of a PPH agreement between CIPO and the European Patent Office (EPO). K. Murphy responded that the EPO has not been interested in the past, however CIPO is open to the possibility. K. Ledwell wondered if there were any plans for CIPO to have a unidirectional PPH with the EPO. K. Murphy answered that there have not been any discussions about unidirectional PPH agreements. The main concern in this respect is examination capacity.

A. Ionescu asked if statistics for special orders are the same as those for PPH applications and thought that it would be helpful to have information on grant rate and the incidence of first action allowances for special orders for the sake of comparison. K. Murphy responded she would investigate whether these statistics may be obtained for the next JLC meeting. She added that the total processing time for PPH and special order applications was the same at 90 days. However, responses for special orders are due 3 months from the date of an Office action whereas responses for PPH applications are due 6 months from that date.

4. New Business

4a PCT National Phase and Unity

N. Pellemans had submitted for discussion two PCT cases where CIPO, acting as the ISA and IPEA, had concluded in the international phase that all claims were novel and inventive, however there were two distinct inventions in each application. Both clients sought expedited examination of the applications using the PCT-PPH program. After filing two Canadian national phase applications for each PCT application, CIPO indicated that the second applications could not be processed as national phase entries and would need to be filed as divisional applications of the first applications. In addition, the examination fee for the divisional applications would be $800.00, whereas the examination fee for a large entity for national phase entries of a PCT application examined at the international level by CIPO would be $200. He wondered if the Canadian Rules could be amended to allow Canadian national phase entries in parallel. He also wondered if there could be a national phase examination fee reduction for these second "divisional" applications.

K. Murphy responded that to change the national entry requirements would require a change to the Canadian Patent Rules. The Office interprets section 59 to mean that a single international PCT application can only have a single national entry. Upon national entry, a divisional application can be filed with the national phase entry as the parent application. Subsection 36(4) of the Canadian Patent Act indicates that a divisional application shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct application. As such, the divisional application is not linked to the PCT application, and the reduced fees cannot apply to the divisional application.

Of note, there is a risk that if only a reduced fee was paid for the divisional, it may be determined later on that insufficient fees may have been paid for the application.

The Office does apply the reduced national phase entry fee for applications that have been the subject of search by the Commissioner as liberally as possible, however, unfortunately for the cases in question, this cannot be extended to divisional applications. The PCT-PPH program already very significantly accelerates examination of the applications. The additional processing time required for the divisional application of 2 to 3 weeks does not unduly delay the accelerated prosecution, which is still approximately 10 times faster than a non PCT-PPH application.

N. Pellemans wondered if quicker processing could be achieved by filing a single national phase entry with all of the claims and then dividing later. K. Murphy responded that there would still be a delay as a unity objection would be raised in the first report, and a divisional would still need to be filed with a second PPH request. Applicants should enter national entry with the first application, after which a national phase entry number would be obtained. After obtaining that number, divisional applications may be filed.

4b Correspondence address

N. Pellemans had submitted that the Patent Rules should specify that the correspondence address in a patent application where the inventor is not represented by a registered Patent Agent be the inventor's personal correspondence address. He suggested that this would make it more difficult for third party firms to operate as "undercover" Patent Agents.

A. Lajoie responded that Section 9 of the Patent Rules requires the provision of the address of the correspondent, and not the inventor's home address. There is little that the Office can do in this regard in view of the Regulations being as they are. If evidence of the "undercover" activity is found, this could be referred to the Competition Bureau.

4c Priority of Examination by Examiner

N. Pellemans had asked if information pertaining to the priorities of examination for examiners could be made available to IPIC members. L. Giardina affirmed that, every year, examiners are provided with a list of examination priorities and required time limits for various tasks. He suggested that these priorities could be attached to the minutes of the JLC meeting. D. Naumann wondered how much leeway is given to examiners in this regard. L. Giardina answered that examiners' section heads and supervisors look at the relevant numbers on a monthly basis, and a backup examiner is assigned to the work of an examiner who is on leave. Clients may call the Office if, for example, there appears to be delays in Office actions for special orders.

4d Canadian Patents images on CIPO's website Pre-1920

N. Pellemans had asked if there were plans to make images for patents granted prior to 1920 available on CIPO's website. A. Houde responded that the Library and Archives Canada website contains a database of Canadian granted patents for the time period between 1869 and 1919. All of the images are scanned .jpg images. The images are currently available on CIPO's internal server, however they need to be cleaned up and converted to .tif files in order for them to be properly accessible in CIPO's patent database. The Office will make this conversion in the future.

4e Low quality of the scanned pages when documents are sent from CIPO by email

N. Pellemans had noted that scanned pages sent from CIPO by e-mail are of low quality. He asked if it would be possible for the Office to improve the quality of these images and to provide them in colour. A. Houde responded that the Office will investigate this, however the scanners are set up in black and white, and adding colour may cause degradation of other images. He added that the resolution of the scanners is 300 dpi.

4f Secured receiving document site

N. Pellemans had asked if it would be possible to send documents to CIPO via a secured document-receiving site, such as Yousendit or Dropbox. A. Houde responded no, that the system presently in place only permits paper or e-mail. There would need to be a dropbox for each agent, and the result would be a greatly increased workload for patent operations. However, the suggestion will be kept in mind for the future.

4g Technical problems when filing documents electronically as "General correspondence"

N. Pellemans had noted that when using the general correspondence e-form in cases where a fee is not being paid, the form appears to fail. A. Houde responded that, in cases where no fee is being paid, the corresponding field should be left blank, and not filled in with, for example, a zero. S. Zhang suggested that the CIPO website indicate that the field must be left blank in these cases.

4h List of Patent Agents on CIPO's website

N. Pellemans had asked if a full list of registered patent agents could be provided on CIPO's website, with in-house patent agents provided in a second list. A. Lajoie responded that the reason there is a difference in the completeness of the patent agent list provided on the website and the trademark agent list published on the website lies in differences in the wording of the Patent Act versus the Trade-marks Act. Section 28 of the Trade-marks Act provides that the Registrar is to publish a list of trademark agents which must include the names of all persons and firms entitled to represent applicants. However, section 15 of the Patent Act, which deals with the Register of patent agents, is worded so as to allow for the reservation of privacy information. A. Lajoie added that she would verify with CIPO's legal department if at least the names of the registered patent agents could be placed on the website so that members of the public may see if a certain person is or is not a registered patent agent.

C. Ledgley asked if there is a telephone number that the public can call to verify that a particular person is a registered patent agent. A. Lajoie responded that such information can be obtained from the maintenance fee and agent renewal section of the Patent Branch, which section maintains the register. In addition, the Client Service Centre has access to that information and can confirm whether or not a person is on the register of patent agents.

4i Form PCT/IPEA/429

N. Pellemans had asked that the guidelines concerning PCT form PCT/IPEA/429 ("Notification concerning informal communication with the Applicant") be clarified. The form includes a field designated "Reply due" and includes a statement indicating that "If no reply is submitted, the international preliminary examination report will reflect only the opinion expressed by this authority". Mr. Pellemans has had two cases where a Chapter II Written Opinion had been issued with a 2-month deadline to reply. In both cases, shortly after the issuance of the Written Opinion, a PCT/IPEA/429 form had also been issued but with a one-month deadline to reply, thus seeming to shorten the time limit for reply to the Written Opinion. He did not think this was fair and was also concerned that if the PCT/IPEA/429 form is set out by mail and it is never received, one would not be aware that the deadline has been shortened.

S. Meunier asked that the application numbers for these two cases be provided to the Office. To clarify the practice regarding form PCT/IPEA/429, he explained firstly that in the Chapter II phase, all telephone discussions are documented in a form PCT/IPEA/428. The 429 form is a cover page that is only created in two situations: 1) when a copy of the discussion is requested by the applicant, in which case there is no reply necessary and no reply due date on the form; and 2) when examiners require a reply, in which case the due date for reply is 1 month, but extendable if requested. The 1-month deadline is strictly for the reply to the 429. Written Opinions, on the other hand, are for formal communications and carry a two-month deadline for reply. A deadline for a reply to a 429 does not affect the deadline for a reply to a Written Opinion and vice versa. However, both deadlines should not occur at the same time, and the issuance of a form 429 should be agreed upon in the telephone conversation. The Office will remind examiners of this practice.

A. Ionescu asked if all examiners perform ISA/IPEA international phase examination. L. Giardina responded that examiners are responsible for examining applications of a given IPC classification at both the international and national phases. However, new examiners may only examine at the international phase after having been in training for at least one year. A. Zahl asked if it is the same examiner for a given PCT application at both the national and international phases. L. Giardina responded that, in general, this is the case.

4j Weight limit when sending registered mail

N. Pellemans had noted that there is a weight limit of 500 grams when sending a letter by registered mail. He opined that correspondence procedures should be reviewed to allow the use of similar tracked services, where the weight limit is much higher, while still preserving the filing date.

S. Vasudev responded that the Office is aware of this limitation and offered that for patent applications that weigh more than 500 grams, it is necessary to break the applications up into two or more different components for mailing. In a past review of correspondence procedures, the Office had decided to continue to use registered mail as opposed to a courier, as registered mail provides the sender with a mailing receipt and ensures secure handling and signed confirmation of delivery.

4k "Z" on amended pages

L.-P. Gravelle had noted that there is inconsistency in examiners' practice regarding the acceptability of the "Z" on blank portions of amended pages. M. Gillen responded that examiners should not object to the presence of the "Z" on amended pages and, in the next training bulletin, examiners will be reminded of this.

4l Sequence listing as a completion requirement

E. Taylor had submitted this agenda item on behalf of the IPIC Biotechnology Committee. The committee had noted that CIPO has suddenly started treating non-compliant sequence listings as a completion requirement and is charging a $200 completion fee under Section 94 of the Patent Rules. In the past, this had generally not been raised until the first Office Action, and no completion fee had been required. This has raised concerns that there are issues regarding the status of older applications where no completion fee had been required and no completion fee had been paid.

S. Vasudev affirmed that in the past, the Office had sent a courtesy letter indicating that the examiner may requisition in a future Office Action a sequence listing that complies with the Patent Rules. However, it has become apparent to the Office that Rule 94 imposes a positive obligation on the Commissioner to send out a completion notice when completion requirements are not fulfilled. Therefore, where a sequence listing is not in the proper format, a completion notice, including a requisition for payment of the completion fee, is sent to the applicant. With regards to past practice, in the absence of any requisition from the Commissioner, there would have been no obligation on the part of the applicant to have paid any completion fee. Therefore, the Office believes that older applications are not affected for having not paid a completion fee which had never been requisitioned.

D. Schwartz noted that the Office reads the Rules stringently and requires very strict compliance of sequence listings with WIPO Standard St. 25. He surmised that there appears to be two options moving forward: 1) the Office can choose to turn a blind eye to minor sequence listing errors; and 2) a solution in the long-term would be an amendment to the Rules to take into account effort to comply with the standard.

S. Vasudev concurred and thanked Mr. Schwartz for his comments.

4m Divisional Status

E. Taylor had submitted this item regarding letters being received from CIPO saying that a divisional filing is not entitled to divisional status because it does not claim a distinct invention. These are not Office Actions and not requisitions, and are sent before a substantive examination has commenced. He questioned the reason for which CIPO has started sending these letters and why it is not left until later in the prosecution of an application when it may be easier to determine exactly what subject matter is going to be focussed on in the filing.

L. Giardina responded that the workflow for examining divisional applications has recently been under review. Fewer of these letters should be seen as examiners may decide whether it would be most efficient to examine the parent and divisional applications at the same time. The intent of the letters has been to let applicants know, as soon as possible, that there could be a double-patenting issue between the subject matter claimed in the parent application and that claimed in the divisional application.

4n Subsection 27(8) practice

I. Clark had noted that it is unclear in a number of subject matter rejections whether the grounds for rejection is section 2 (of the Patent Act) only or also subsection 27(8). Some Office Actions have referred to a mere scheme, plan, rule or mental process and section 12.06.02 of MOPOP. He opined that if subsection 27(8) is not a ground for rejection, then explicit or implicit references to a mere scheme, plan, rule, mental process, disembodied idea and abstract idea should be avoided.

K. Campsall responded that the item appears to relate to two issues. The first issue pertains to whether subsection 27(8) of the Act should be a ground for rejection of subject matter. As this relates to an interpretation of the recent FCA decision of Amazon.com, it is hoped that the upcoming release of practice guidance regarding the decision will clarify the position of the Office on subject matter rejections. The second issue relates to the clarity of examiners' objections. The Office plans to review this with examiners to ensure that the language of objections in examiners' reports does not introduce ambiguity causing the grounds of a rejection to be obscured.

4o Incorrectly sent notices of abandonment

L.-P. Gravelle's firm has documented 38 cases where notices of abandonment were incorrectly issued and wondered if there was some way the Office could prevent this from occurring. S. Périardresponded that the Office will look into these 38 instances and when this occurs clients should identify the cases using the client feedback mechanism.

A. Zahl noted that, in a related issue, letters have been received which have not been identified as a requisition and having no explicit deadline for a response. Therefore, the applicant does not send a response. However, 6 months after the date of the letter a notice of abandonment due to failure to respond is received. S. Périard asked that the relevant application numbers for these cases be brought to the Office's attention before the next JLC meeting.

4p Refunds of CIPO fees and deposit account

A. Zahl had asked if it would be possible for CIPO to make it a practice to send a letter or e-mail whenever a fee is refunded notifying clients of the refund and the matter to which it relates. S. Périard responded that the Office sends a letter stating that a refund will be issued accordingly. The refund is then processed by Finance. On a monthly basis, a statement with respect to the deposit account is forward to each firm. This information will be displayed online in the near future.

4q Status of Patent Application

H. Sue had asked if CIPO had adopted a new policy prohibiting CIPO staff from telling clients the status of an application, including an application where they are the agent of record. He added that he had been told that CIPO has at least a 6-7 month backlog in responding to status inquiries.

S. Périard responded that to find out if an application is in good standing, clients should call the client service centre. To inquire as to whether correspondence has been reviewed by CIPO, clients should call the relevant department. With regards to answering when an application will be examined, the Office is currently answering status requests from February, 2012, and so turnaround times are being reduced. There are difficulties with providing the status of applications in the electrical division, so for this discipline, the provision of the anticipated examination date has been put on hold to let the division catch up.

C. Ledgley asked what turnaround time should be expected for status requests as to when an application will be examined. S. Périard replied that the turnaround time is generally 4-5 months. A. Lajoie added that for a fee of $15, the client service centre will provide a printout containing precise information pertaining to the status of an application. With respect to when an application is to be examined, the Office's objective is to provide clear service standards for each discipline. It is hoped that in providing these clear service standards, the number of status requests will be reduced.

4r Special Order

K. Lachaine had asked if it was possible after losing special order status due to abandonment to regain that status by making another request and paying another fee. S. Vasudev responded no. This is in view of subsection 28(2) of the Patent Rules which provides that, with respect to a request for expedited examination of an application, the Commissioner shall return the application to its routine order any examination that has been advanced if, after April 30, 2011, the application is deemed to be abandoned.

4s Illegible description pages

A. Ionescu had asked if the Office can advise if the practice of using Courtesy Letters to inform the applicant of minor deficiencies or non-compliance has changed. He had received an Office Action in which the only objection raised pertained to an allegation that several pages of the description contained illegible parts. S. Meunier responded that the practice has not changed, however the letters to which Mr. Ionescu referred were not Courtesy Letters but, rather, official communications with a 3-month time limit to respond. If upon examining an application an examiner notes that there are illegible pages, this will be added to their report. However, generally, if the illegible pages are the only problem, the application should be approved for allowance by the examiner, and Examination Support will send the office letter. After the corrected pages are submitted, the notice of allowance is sent.

4t CIPO fax number

A. Ionescu had noted that clients have been instructed to use the official correspondence fax number for all transmissions, and that direct fax numbers to particular sections have ceased to work. A. Lajoie explained that the official correspondence fax number is being used for all transmissions because using the official number ensures that communications, which may for example contain credit card information, are processed securely. All of the information received in the server is stored for 3 months.

4u Practice notice respecting methods of medical treatment

A. Ionescu had noted that an Office Action which had been issued on the same day as the Amazon.com proposed practice notice appeared to closely follow that practice notice. He had also observed that the Practice Notice respecting Methods of Medical Treatment had not been labelled as being for public consultation.

M. Gillen responded that the Office is currently considering comments on the Amazon.com practice notice with the Commissioner. With respect to the timing of the report to which Mr. Ionescu referred, examiners did not have the practice notice documents in advance, and there is a delay of 1-2 weeks from the time a report is written to the time it is dated and mailed. Therefore, it was a coincidence that the practice notice and report had the same date. The report would have been based on the examiner's interpretation of the interim guidance and not on the consultation documents. With regards to the document "Practice Notice respecting Methods of Medical Treatment" not having been labelled as a consultation document, it was indeed intended as such and the Office has received many comments on the document.

4v Excess pages fees

A. Brett had asked for an update on changes that will reduce the excess pages fees for cases containing sequence listings.

S. Vasudev responded that the Office intends that the electronic sequence listing not be included in the calculation of the final fee, but in view of the wording of the legislation, it must be at the present time. Package 2 of the Rules amending the Patent Rules will include a modification to the fee schedule dealing with excess pages fees.

In the meantime, a possible workaround is to allow the application to go abandoned by not paying the final fee, then request reinstatement, taking the necessary actions, including paying the final fee. At the time of the request for reinstatement, the applicant could include a voluntary amendment requesting to remove superfluous elements. The original final fee could then be refunded, upon request, and when the new notice of allowance is sent, payment of the revised final fee will be requisitioned. Subsection 30(1) of the Patent Rules provides that the Commissioner shall requisition payment of the applicable final fee set out in paragraph 6(a) or (b) of Schedule II. The excess pages fees are set out in these paragraphs. However, subsection 73(1)(f) of the Patent Act provides that an application is deemed to be abandoned if the applicant does not pay the fee stated in a notice of allowance. Therefore, the Office maintains that the final fee due is the amount set forth in the original notice of allowance. D. Schwartz noted that there is a concern that the original final fee would not be refunded following reinstatement of the application if technical preparations for grant had begun. S. Vasudev answered that if a case has gone abandoned for failure to pay the final fee and then the case is reinstated, it is then back in prosecution and the process for allowance is reset.

D. Naumann asked how the page numbers are counted based on an electronic sequence listing. S. Vasudev responded that a program is run which uses specific parameters to calculate the number of pages based on the electronic version of the sequence listing.

4w Processing time

J. Pivnicki had submitted questions with regard to processing time required by CIPO for particular submissions. S. Périard had provided to members of the JLC an electronic version of a chart indicating the turnaround times for the various services to which Mr. Pivnicki had referred.

4x Assignment registration certificates

J. Wilson had noted that assignment registration certificates include only the registration number and application number. However, clients often register multiple documents against the same application, sometimes at the same time. She wondered if it would be possible to have some additional detail, such as execution date of each inventor on a registered document, so that clients can distinguish which certificate is for which document. S. Périard responded that, for the time being, it is not possible to include more fields. However, the certificates also contain other information, such as the type of assignment, from-to registration and application number.

4y Online filing web form

J. Wilson had observed that section 7.1 of the online filing web form includes a checkbox for "not applicable" and fields for providing priority document details. However, the priority document detail fields are always active, regardless of whether the "not applicable" box is checked (by default) or unchecked (to claim priority). If the user misses un-checking this box, then the "not applicable" overrides, even if priority information had been input, so the application may be inadvertently filed without the priority claim. She wondered if it would be possible to change the form to prevent this from happening.

A. Houde responded that the original intention had been to know if the field has been left intentionally blank. This issue will be documented but it is unsure if it will be fixed as all old e-services, including e-filing, are being redone. The Office is interested in receiving feedback and in having agents as a test group for modified e-services. A. Lajoie added that e-services are being modified through a series of small projects, and that the Office needs input from agents as to what they would require.

5. Other Business

No such items were identified.

6. Issues Covered in Previous JLC Meetings

No issues covered in previous JLC meetings were discussed here.

7. Specific Enquiries

7a PCT (Lack of Unity) Industrial Applicability

Prior to the JLC meeting, S. Vasudev had contacted J. Pivnicki regarding this specific enquiry.

8. Delayed to Next Meeting

No items were delayed to the next meeting.

9. Date of Next Meeting

The next JLC meeting will take place on Thursday, November 1, 2012 [at 1:00 PM in Room D, 24^th floor, Place du Portage, Phase I, 50 rue Victoria, Gatineau, QC, K1A 0C9].

The meeting adjourned at 4:10 PM.