| The customer could not understand why his claims had been re-written by a formalities examiner and then objected to by a patent examiner. |
We explained that the claims had been rewritten to ensure that they complied with the formal requirements of the Patent Rules on format and layout. The examiner suggested a possible re-wording of the claims which the customer was invited to consider. |
| Your query related to the electronic journal and DRIMS WEB. You said that the information was not easy to find on our website and was also ambiguous. |
We helped you locate the electronic journal and DRIMS WEB. |
| The customer complained that the examiner had not searched for a particular feature of the invention in a patentability search and so was unclear whether to file a patent application. |
We explained that the examiner had not searched the particular feature as it did not appear to be essential. The application was researched and an amended report issued. |
| An enquirer was redirected between departments as they didn’t know the answer to his query. The customer wanted RPC's that were 10 years or older. |
We apologized and gave the customer the contact details of the 'Sales' department. This feedback has been issued to our Central Enquiry Unit for future reference. |
| The customer had filed a statutory application based on the results of a commercial patentability search, but additional citations had been found which were detrimental to the application. |
We explained that the statutory and commercial searches have a different emphasis and therefore can produce differing results. It was felt that both searches were appropriate based on the information provided. This information has been cascaded to our Central Enquiry Unit for future reference. |
| You were unhappy about the amount we charge for Patent renewals and concerned about providing us with your confidential information. |
We explained how we safeguard confidential information and detailed the patent application processes and associated costs. |
| You were unhappy with two Patent search reports, feeling that the search statements were not accurate and the searches seemed to be rushed. |
A letter was sent explaining why we feel the search statements were fairly drafted. |
| A customer advised that the subject matter searched for in a patent search appeared to be incorrect. |
We conducted a supplementary search and a revised search report was issued. |
| You complained about the technical content of the patent search report (freedom to operate), believing that the most relevant document was not cited in our report. |
We apologised for not citing the document. Although this document was relevant and should have been cited, the examiner believed that better documents had been found and cited, and this was mentioned in the letter. |
