Practice Committee Meeting PB/IPIC - Tuesday, November 17, 2020

S. Vasudev introduced the New Practice on Patentable Subject-Matter under the Patent Act, available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr04860.html ("New Practice"), which includes two documents: the Practice and a list of examples. He congratulated the Practice team for being able to get the New Practice out quickly. He indicated that the Manual of Patent Office Practice (MOPOP) will be updated in light of the New Practice – a proposed revised version of Chapters 12, 17, 18, 22 and 23 should be available for consultation in the spring. In light of the broad scope of the expected changes, the proposed consultation period will likely be 8 weeks.

J. Wilson indicated that she was impressed by how quickly the New Practice was provided, but expressed disappointment that IPIC was not consulted on its contents. She asked whether there would be any value in IPIC providing a submission before the formal consultations on the MOPOP updates, to be taken into consideration before the bulk of the drafting work is performed. S. Vasudev responded that comments are welcome at any time and are not limited to the formal consultations. J. Wilson indicated that she would consult IPIC to see if there is a desire to make a submission before the formal consultation.

J. Leuschner commented that he found the interpretation of every element being an essential element in the New Practice to be consistent with what is seen in practice, but was surprised by the discussion on the actual invention and how it differs from the essential elements. Also, he asked if substantial changes will be possible following the formal consultation on the proposed MOPOP updates. S. Vasudev responded that the Office is always open to changes. Relevant comments relate not only to the reasoning behind the New Practice but also whether it is consistent, clear and predictable. Although the fundamental ideas behind the New Practice may not change, the consultation and comments are still important for all of these other aspects.

L-P. Gravelle pointed out that the interpretation of case law on patentable subject matter and claim construction by the Office has been analyzed by the courts twice in recent years and twice, the courts have told the Office that they were not following jurisprudence. He encouraged the Office to make every necessary effort to ensure that this situation does not happen again with the New Practice. He acknowledged that there is a great level of difficulty in this endeavour but underlined that what IPIC wants when it comes to patentable subject matter is clarity, transparency and understanding that any practice notice and eventual MOPOP revisions will be in accordance with the state of the law.

J. Leuschner and J-C. Grégoire indicated that the examples of the New Practice are very helpful, and that the updated MOPOP chapters should include further examples to improve predictability, with positive examples being preferable. S. Vasudev indicated that the need for positive examples was taken into account when preparing the New Practice and will also be taken into account in the MOPOP update.

top of page

4. Examination issues

4.1 Drawings requisitions

IPIC has noted a recent change in the application of the rules concerning drawings, which remain essentially unchanged from the previous Patent Rules. Since October 30, examiners have been using subsection 59(10) of the Patent Rules to require that drawings must appear in the application in consecutive order—which they did not do before October 30, even though the rule was the same. This does not appear to be a one-off objection by one examiner.

Also, IPIC has noted the use of subjection 59(13) of the Patent Rules to object to a flowchart drawing, which naturally includes text defining the steps of each block. However, they noted that this defect was raised by a mechanical examiner, and suggested that a reminder to all examiners that flowcharts with text are permissible may be helpful.

S. Meunier responded that there has been no change in practice and in the training regarding this drawing requisition issue; there is however a possibility that the PLT training reminded some examiners that drawings must be numbered consecutively, and as a result more of those defects might now be identified. As an example, he indicated that multiple drawings on the same page which appear to not be numbered consecutively because they are not left to right or top to bottom would probably not be a defect. However, if drawings are numbered out of order from one page to another, then this would probably be a defect under subsection 59(10) of the Patent Rules

J. Wilson asked if an application which had Fig. 1 on the 1^st page, Figs. 2 and 4 on the 2^nd page and Fig. 3 on the 3^rd page would be a defect. S. Meunier responded that as per the language of subsection 59(10) of the Patent Rules, this would appear to be a defect; the word "consecutively" is also used in subsection 50(1) of the Patent Rules with respect to the pages of the description, and it is clear there that it means "in numerical order".

J. Wilson pointed out that this type of configuration of Figures is frequent, for example to group smaller Figures on a same page to reduce fees in a number of jurisdictions. Also, agents often do not have access to the original Figures, and as such changing the order of the Figures can be costly for the applicants. L-P. Gravelle underlined that this type of defect was never seen before the implementation of PLT. S. Meunier asked IPIC to provide examples of this type of configuration of Figures, so that there can be a further discussion on this point.

With respect to the use of subjection 59(13) of the Patent Rules, S. Meunier responded that flowcharts containing some text are acceptable as drawings; the Patent Rules allow for the presence of text to the extent necessary to understand the drawings, although whole paragraphs would likely not be acceptable. He agreed that a reminder to examiners to that effect may be necessary. With respect to the determination of how much text is acceptable in a flowchart, J. Wilson pointed out that preparing revised flowcharts with less text than the original Figures is also costly and complex for applicants.

4.2 Requirement for paragraph numbering

IPIC pointed out that paragraph numbering in the application text is not required. However, when an amendment is made to add or delete paragraphs without adding or adjusting the numbering, this sometimes results in an objection. IPIC reiterated that it is difficult for Canadian applicants to make amendments to specifications, since they may only have PDF copies and not source documents, and as such would appreciate some leniency in these cases.

S. Meunier agreed that there is no requirement for paragraph numbering, consecutive or otherwise, in Canadian law, and so there is no need to identify a defect in these cases. Also, he indicated that there have been cases where some examiners might have incorrectly identified defects when there is a "null" paragraph, i.e. where the applicant deletes a paragraph but retains the paragraph number to maintain consistency. The Office will be reminding the examiners that inconsistencies in paragraph numbering is not a defect in an upcoming Examiner's Bulletin (EB).

4.3 Interview summaries

IPIC asked to re-open the discussion on whether the interview summaries should be sent to the applicants – this was last discussed in 2019 and the Office's decision was that they would not be sent, since it was determined during the pilot period that agents were split on whether this was desirable and there was a significant internal cost to the Office. IPIC asked for the issue to be re-opened in light of how subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act is being raised by defendants in litigation.

S. Vasudev responded that there does not yet seem to be a justification to change the current practice; the operational constraints have not changed and the Office is of the opinion that the Interview Record documents do not appear to fall under the purview of subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act because they are not written communications between the applicant for the patent and an employee of the Office. However, he indicated that if the Office did send the Interview Record documents to the applicants, subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act would apply.

J. Wilson indicated that the Office's interpretation of subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act appears to be too narrow: the document is a communication between the applicant and the Office and is in writing, and so believes that subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act applies to it whether it is sent or not. S. Vasudev indicated that the Office will wait for jurisprudence on subsection 53.1 of the Patent Act and will review this issue then, if required.

4.4 Verifying title for allowance

IPIC asked if the practice of when the correct title of an application (on page 1) is being checked against TechSource has changed, because agents have noted more inconsistencies between TechSource and page 1 titles in recent months.

S. Meunier responded that there has been no change in the practice regarding the title, but that a follow up has been performed to ensure the employees are checking the titles and ensuring they are verified and correct. He clarified that at filing and at allowance, there is a verification by Exam Support that the title in TechSource and on the first page of the description match, otherwise the title is changed in TechSource. Examiners are required to examine the title on the first page of the description, and if the title on that first page needs to be changed, the examiner would raise it as a defect. Whenever there is a title change on the first page of the description, Exam Support would make the change of the title in TechSource.

4.5 Patent Appeal Board (PAB)

IPIC asked if, now that the PAB seems to have dealt with some of its Electrical Division backlog this summer, there could be a return to a hearing before three members.

S. Meunier responded that although it is true that the Office has released several Commissioner's Decisions (CDs) in the spring, especially in May, the same cannot be said for the summer period. Since there is still a large backlog/inventory of cases, the Office is not planning at this time to return to hearings before three members.

J. Wilson asked about the possibilities for the cases that had a hearing or submission before the New Practice on Patentable Subject-Matter and that are still pending. S. Meunier responded that he will verify and get back, but that in these cases, the applicant would probably get another opportunity to be heard if the application is not allowed.

4.6 Rescinding patent grants

IPIC indicated that CIPO had a rash of unintentional patent grants in late 2019-early 2020: a number of transitional cases that were abandoned for non-payment of the final fee on a notice mailed before October 30 were reinstated after October 30, but instead of being returned to examination, they were returned to examination and sent to grant at the same time. When this was discovered, CIPO reached out to the putative patentees to ask for the "patents" back, and regardless returned the applications to examination. IPIC asked for further details on this issue and if the matter has been resolved with all the affected applicants

S. Vasudev responded that this unfortunate situation was the result of a tasking issue that has since been resolved and as such is no longer occurring. The great majority of impacted files have been resolved. There are some files that are still being discussed, and since this is an issue which is sensitive and has a potential for litigation, it cannot be discussed in details at this time. However, once all the files have been satisfactorily resolved, a more detailed discussion will be possible.

4.7 Dedications to the public

IPIC asked the reason why CIPO publishes dedications to the public if such dedications are not recognized as a statutory concession of rights.

S. Vasudev responded that although dedications to the public are not explicitly provided for in the Patent Act or Patent Rules, there is jurisprudence that suggests that dedications may have a legal effect in some circumstances. In Parke-Davis Division v Canada (Minister of Health), 2002 FCA 454, at paragraph 84, the Federal Court of Appeal stated:

Although there is no provision in the Patent Act which governs the termination of patent rights by dedication to public use, we are not persuaded that such a thing is impossible as a matter of law. Assuming it is possible, publication of a dedication notice in the Canadian Patent Office Record is certainly a method by which a dedication to public use can be accomplished.

Given the possibility that publications of dedications by CIPO may have some legal effect, the practice of CIPO has been to publish notices received from patentees stating that they have made a dedication to the public. CIPO takes no position as to whether a particular dedication has any legal effect and the notices published by CIPO are worded in a manner to make clear that they are only a notice of what has been stated by the patentee.

top of page

5. Recent MOPOP Revisions

5.1 Section 2.03.03e (extensions of time)

MOPOP has been broadened to remove the statement that the Commissioner will generally grant an extension of time (EOT) "of up to six months per file and per action", and to state instead that it will be "a period of their discretion". IPIC asked if this signifies a change in how discretion will be exercised, and precisions on the guidelines that will be followed if that is the case.

S. Vasudev responded that in general, the exercise of discretion has not changed. The threshold for acceptability was always modest; applicants must make a reasonable justification, however, the Commissioner also won't necessarily subject any reasonable statement to rigorous interrogation. Also, the previous indication of "up to six months" spoke to the limits of an extension applied to examiner's reports; the change to a more generalized "period of their discretion" reflects the reality that not all extensions are for examiner's reports and, beyond the specific mention under subsection 131(2) of the Patent Rules, such a delineation of time (i.e. 6 months) placed an unnatural restriction on the Commissioner's discretion.

J. Wilson expressed a general concern that the change would result in more restrictions on when an EOT can be obtained, and asked if there was a quality control (QC) performed on the process of granting EOTs. She indicated that there have been some inconsistencies: for example, two requests for EOT for examiner reports had the same wording referring to more time being required to think about the response, but one of the cases added to that "in light of COVID" – the request referring to COVID had been refused while the other had been granted. This seemed to be incorrect since the request referring to COVID also included all of the language of the accepted request.

K. Rooney responded that the Office has a practice stating that the mere mention of COVID itself is not a sufficient reason for EOT, but that in this particular case the practice was probably not applied correctly because if the wording required for an acceptable request was also present, the request should have been accepted. She asked J. Wilson to provide the specific examples. C. Piché added that there is currently no QC on the review of EOT request, but that CIPO will consider adding a QC process and that the COVID practice will be clarified.

J. Leuschner pointed out that with respect to the type of explanation required, the language of the MOPOP that referred to a requirement for a simple explanation was changed to "reasonable and detailed explanations". He asked whether the threshold for the acceptable level of explanations was still the same. S. Vasudev answered that there was no intent of substantial change on this threshold. K. Rooney confirmed that with respect to the 6-month time allocation the work instructions have not changed.

5.2 Section 5.05.03b and 5.06.02b (appointment of agent confirmation)

The statement that the Office will send a confirmation of the appointment of agent/associate agent to the agent and the person appointing the agent has been deleted. IPIC asked if there has been a change in practice on this point. They indicated that agents rely on these notices to confirm that representation has been updated, and that it is also important to make sure that the previous agent (if any) receives a notification that they have been removed.

S. Vasudev responded that after processing an appointment of a new patent agent or associate patent agent, the Office will send a courtesy letter confirming the new appointment to whomever submitted the appointment. In most cases this is the agent who has just been appointed. He indicated that this is a continuation of Office practice prior to the implementation of the new Patent Rules, and that sending confirmation letters to multiple persons or firms would unnecessarily burden Operations and result in longer waiting times. He also confirmed that any time there is a revocation of a patent agent or an associate patent agent, the revoked agent will receive a courtesy letter notifying them of the revocation.

J. Wilson indicated that the apparent result of this procedure would be that for an application where another party files for national entry with the appointment of agent, the other party will receive the confirmation of the appointment of agent, and the agent will receive the notice of national entry. K. Rooney confirmed that this would be the case, but agreed that this end result would be undesirable. J. Wilson reiterated the importance for an appointed agent to receive a confirmation that they are appointed.

K. Rooney proposed to change the procedure so that the confirmation is sent to the appointed agent instead of the person who submitted the appointment, as such a change would not increase the burden on the Office. J. Wilson responded that this would be preferable to the current situation. K. Rooney indicated that the Office will implement this change in procedure.

5.3 Section 6.07.01 (name changes)

This section interprets section 125 of the Patent Rules as applying only to a "name change of a person". IPIC indicated that this created some confusion with some agents as to whether it would apply to partnerships, and that the second sentence of the section is also confusing. IPIC proposed the following changes:

The Office takes the position that section 125 of the Patent Rules applies only to a name change of a ~~person who~~ is currently recorded ~~as an~~ applicant or patentee in the records of the Office. The Office will not record a name change of a previous ~~previously recorded~~ applicant or patentee appearing in the ownership history

S. Vasudev agreed that a name change can be for a person or a partnership or a corporate entity. He indicated that the suggested changes will be taken into account in the next revision of MOPOP, although the term "ownership history" would probably not be retained as it seems too technical.

top of page

6. Operational Issues

Some operational issues related to missing correspondence were addressed in a special meeting on November 11, 2020, and as such were not discussed in the current meeting.

6.1 Order of processing appointments of agents/revocations

IPIC noticed that over the past several months, appointment of agents are not being processed as quickly as previously, and also do not appear to be processed in the order received; they asked if this was the result of the new Patent Rules and/or COVID. IPIC also noted that bulk appointments of agent seem to be taking significantly longer than individual appointments of agent, and indicated that these appointments should be treated with the same priority as individual appointments.

C. Piché responded that the Office tries to process appointment of agents as soon as possible and in the order that they are received, but that this order may not correspond to the order of their submissions if there were some delays at the incoming correspondence unit (ICU). She clarified that there was no change in practice but that the team processing the appointment of agents is also responsible for processing other types of correspondence (for example, agent renewal fees) which has created an extra workload for that team and a resulting backlog. She indicated that the backlog should be cleared in a few weeks.

With respect to bulk appointments of agents, C. Piché indicated that these have the same priority as individual appointment of agents but take more time to process; because of the nature of the current IT system, each file within a bulk request must be processed individually. A macro has been created to accelerate processing, but time consuming verifications are still required, and some bulk requests include a large number of applications which can result in days required for their processing. She indicated that IT modernization will eventually target this area for improvement.

6.2 Correct labelling of National Phase Entry (NPE) correspondence

IPIC indicated that documents submitted with NPE are sometimes labelled confusingly when they appear in the Canadian Patent Database (CPD). They asked CIPO to share their instructions to the analysts on naming of these documents. One example provided was labelling of documents related to a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) request.

C. Piché indicated that when there are many documents provided with the National entry request, the appropriate labelling of documents can be confusing for the analysts. She indicated that putting the documents in the proper order can help reduce the instances of errors. For example, in the case of a PPH, the following order should be used:

the PPH request with the amended pages under the PPH in one attachment, or
the PPH request in one attachment following by amended pages under the PPH in another attachment.

6.3 Confirmations needed for certain application actions

IPIC indicated that while they are not required by the Patent Rules, there are instances when applicants need feedback in the form of a confirmation letter, or updated Administrative Status information. For example:

6.3.1 Confirmation that the priority document has been received, when submitted on filing

IPIC indicated that right now the workaround is to stalk the priority application in WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS) to see when it is accessed by CIPO, but even this check is not always accurate. They also indicated that a confirmation from the Office does not have to be a letter sent to the applicant; updated information in the "Admin Status" tab on the CPD confirming that the digital or certified copy is received, or a stub in the CPD indicating receipt, would be sufficient.

S. Vasudev responded that this point was discussed prior to PLT implementation and it was determined that sending a letter for every priority document retrieved or received at filing would be burdensome for the Office. Retrieval of the document from DAS sometimes takes a week or more, so this letter would be not sent at the same time as all other letters/notices sent at filing. Instead, applicants can expect either a DAS error message letter, and/or a Notice under subsection 74(4) of the Patent Rules when the document is not retrieved or received.

S. Vasudev added that while including an indicator in the CPD for the status of the priority documents could be considered, such a change would require programming that could be complex and time-consuming, which, given current limited resources and other priorities, could likely not be completed within the next year. He however indicated that an indicator for the status of the priority documents will be a requirement for the future system.

6.3.2 Detailed confirmation when a correction to a priority claim is made.

IPIC pointed out that currently, a generic letter is sent confirming what type of correction was made to a priority claim (e.g. priority date), but not setting out the corrected data (the corrected date). IPIC indicated that it is important that the correction be set out in detail in a letter to the applicant, particularly when the application is unpublished (and when the correction is made to the priority date).

S. Vasudev responded that there is currently only one letter where the analysts have to input information – this is the DAS error message letter. Including a description of the correction in each confirmation letter would require analysts to input a significant volume of information when considering all types of corrections. Moreover, including the corrected information in a letter is not the best reference as there could be a transcription error. He indicating that checking the CPD would be a better reference since the database reflects the official records.

J. Wilson agreed that in most cases checking the CPD is sufficient, except when the correction is being made to priority date, since by the time checking of the CPD is possible, it is too late for further correction. She reiterated that for corrections to the priority date, the letter confirming that the date has been corrected also needs to include the corrected priority date. S. Vasudev conceded that this situation is particular and critical, and indicated that he will check if it would be possible to make an exception for the letters confirming a correction to a priority date.

6.4 Consistent handling of DAS code errors

6.4.1 Different letters

IPIC indicated that the Office's correspondence when an applicant submits a non-working DAS code appears to be inconsistent. Sometimes the correspondence is a generic letter that simply states the application is not available in DAS. Sometimes the correspondence is a longer-winded form letter that details the error message received from DAS, and explains that the applicant is not considered to have complied with paragraph 74(1)(b) of the Patent Rules. IPIC asked if there was a rationale for the differently worded letters, and indicated that variation in letters confirming what is, essentially, the same issue (failure to comply) regardless of the cause (erroneous DAS code vs. document not yet provided to DAS by originating office) increases cost on the applicant's side.

S. Vasudev responded that a new form letter was finalized in recent weeks; this letter should be the only letter sent to applicants when the access code is not working, and the specific error message should be included in the letter. This is a courtesy letter that is sent to applicants. If the applicant has not complied (provided a working Access code or copy) by the deadline, a Notice under subsection 74(4) of the Patent Rules will be sent requiring compliance.

6.4.2 Confirmation that DAS code did not work

IPIC asked for confirmation of whether the Office is sending letters indicating that a DAS code did not work, regardless of when the DAS code is submitted (whether it is done at filing, or after filing). S. Vasudev confirmed.

6.5 Tighter restrictions on Office-initiated withdrawal from allowance

6.5.1 Use of letter for withdrawal under subsection 86(17) of the Patent Rules

IPIC noted that in a number of cases over the past several months, when the Office initiated a withdrawal from allowance, a letter for withdrawal under subsection 86(17) of the Patent Rules was sent to the applicant rather than a different letter explaining that the withdrawal was initiated by the examiner, which created confusion. They indicated that it seems that this issue has since been corrected, but if not, requested that a different letter be provided when the withdrawal is not due to the applicant's action.

C. Piché indicated that analysts have access to two separate letters for withdrawal of allowance: one for applicant initiated withdrawal under subsection 86(17) of the Patent Rules, and another one for commissioner-initiated withdrawal. The past misuse of letters was a training issue; employees have since been reminded of the proper steps when processing Office-initiated withdrawal from allowance.

6.5.2 Miscalculation of extra page fees

IPIC noted that the criteria for an Office-initiated withdrawal from allowance now include withdrawal due to a miscalculating of excess page fees, which they believe is not a ground for withdrawal under subsection 86(14) of the Patent Rules. They indicated that a withdrawal from allowance in order to correct the notice of allowance with respect to extra page fees does not seem to be the appropriate mechanism, and also noted that there is a difference between the Commissioner deeming correspondence to not have been sent, and actually withdrawing an application from allowance. They also pointed out that generally, processing a withdrawal from allowance or withdrawn correspondence imposes additional cost on the applicant, and additional confusion when the final fee has already been paid.

IPIC provided the following suggestion:

when the error would result or has resulted in an overpayment, send a correction letter indicating the correct fee (do not withdraw the correspondence); if an overpayment is made, proceed with grant and offer a refund of the overage;
when the error would result or has resulted in an underpayment but the applicant has included a General Authorization Statement (GAS), then send a correction letter indicating the correct fee (do not withdraw the correspondence); if the wrong fee is paid, proceed with grant and charge the GAS if the wrong fee is paid; and
if the error would result or has resulted in an underpayment and there is no GAS, withdraw the NOA but not the allowance and send a new notice of allowance.

S. Vasudev responded that the current process was put in place to ensure that the prosecution file was clear and to minimize the possibility of any loss of rights for applicants. However, the Office has been reviewing this process to see if improvements can be made which would still minimize risks while also improving timeliness and reducing correspondence.

6.6 Thin grants

6.6.1 Order of inventor names

IPIC noted that the order of inventors on the new patent certificate, which is alphabetic, does not match the order of inventors on the cover page, and ask that this be fixed so that the certificate matches the cover page order. J. Wilson clarified that the desired order is the order in which the inventor names were provided on filing (i.e., cover page order).

C. Piché responded that the Office is looking into the technical feasibility and options to obtain the requested match.

6.6.2 Excess page fees

IPIC requested clarification on the purpose of the excess page fee used in the final fee calculation: does this apply only to printed pages?

C. Piché responded that the extra page fee is not related to the printing of the grant, but is rather a cost associated with administering a larger application. On average, very large applications take longer to process, to verify and to examine than smaller applications, because they have many more pages that need verifications and handling (even if digitally). The extra page fee is linked to that additional effort required for very large applications.

6.6.3 New eGrant process

C. Piché introduced the new eGrant process which will replace paper grants and will produce a pdf file of a grant certificate ("the patent"), digitally signed and considered official; a second file will also be created, consisting of the content of the granted patent packaged into one pdf file. Two options for delivery are being considered:

when the method of correspondence is email and the enclosed PDF files do not exceed a predetermined size threshold, the two files will be sent by email; if the method of correspondence is mail or if the files are too large to be sent by email, a CD containing the files will be sent by mail; or
the files will be placed on a repository for clients to retrieve, and instructions on how to retrieve the files will be sent via the selected mode of communication (mail or email).

J. Leuschner asked if the pdf containing the patent document will include the cover page. C. Piché responded that she was uncertain. J. Leuschner indicated that the inclusion of the cover page in the file was important and not including it would create a burden on agents and applicants.

C. Piché indicated that a survey will be sent out relating to this new eGrant process and asked for feedback via that survey.

top of page

7. Policy Issues

7.1 Refunds for unusable extensions of time

IPIC pointed out that some EOTs granted during the designated days (particularly for responses to examiner's reports), wound up being useless as the designated days were extended. CIPO's position has apparently been that these are not refundable. IPIC would like to discuss whether this is the proper interpretation.

S. Vasudev responded that if the request for service were impossible to fulfill, then this is what could possibly be defined as a "useless" request. For example, if a request for extension on an examiner's report is sought for a time period within the designated days period and into a period that would be in excess of 6 months from the mailing date of an examiner's report, such a request would be refused because of the specific restriction under subsection 131(2) of the Patent Rules. Under this condition, where the payment is "useless" or otherwise not prescribed or undefined, it could then be refunded under the rubric that it is an overpayment. Otherwise, if the request was made in good faith and it is possible to apply any extension, then the extension would not be considered "useless" and a refund would not be given.

7.2 Computation of extended date with an EOT

IPIC provided the following case for consideration: an applicant requested a "2-month" EOT, which based on the existing due date and the computation would result in a due date of October 8; the acknowledgment letter granting the EOT indicates that the extended deadline was October 7. They asked which correspondence determines the actual extended date when an EOT is granted: the applicant's request or the Office's response. Since the grant of an extension is discretionary, IPIC believes that the date stated in the Office's response must be the correct date. In the particular fact scenario giving rise to this question, the applicant inquired via the Online Feedback Mechanism (OFM) whether the intended extension was October 7 or October 8, and the OFM response was that it was intended to be October 8.

C. Piché responded that the particular case described above was a one-off error by an operations analyst and not a systemic issue. She confirmed in general, the date indicated in the Office's response should be the actual extended date, and it reflects what is in CIPO's database. If for any reason the applicant/agent has reasons to believe there has been an error, they should use the OFM to clarify.

top of page

8. Digital Services: Website optimization

C. Piché introduced the website optimization that will take place in December, which consists in a re-design of the web content so that it is easier to find, use, and understand. She indicated that this re-design was deemed necessary because the current system offers poor navigation, and the information architecture and content design made information difficult to find. The content was re-designed and re-organized to help make information easier to find. She emphasized that the goal of the re-design was to make the information clearer and more accessible, but not to change the content of the information. Changes include:

new Canada.ca look;
fixed breadcrumbs (path that leads to the page the user is on);
re-designed pages for improved navigation;
re-written content to merge duplicate content;
new pages to accommodate new site architecture or fill in gaps; and
content moved to the archives.

J. Wilson asked if there will be redirecting if links are incorrect. C. Plumb responded that after January, the platform used will be changed; the Office is still in the process of gathering information but the understanding at present is that there will be redirecting links.

top of page

9. Roundtable, Next meeting and closing remarks

J. Wilson expressed appreciation for CIPO remaining in good spirits considering all of the administrative burden caused by this unusual year.

L-P Gravelle expressed that the profession at a whole is impressed by CIPO's ability to turn around quickly and provide a high level of service during the pandemic.

V. Éthier underlined that the regular meetings with IPIC are a very positive contribution, and that the communication needs to remain open as we are moving more quickly into the IT modernization process; she thanked IPIC for their contribution in this project.

The next Patent Practice Committee meeting will take place on February 23, 2021, at 1:00PM.

The meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.