PATENT COOPERATION TREATY From the INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY PCT To: WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY (PCT Rule 66) Date of mailing (day/month/year) Applicant’s or agent’s file reference International application No. REPLY DUE International filing date (day/month/year) within months/days from the above date of mailing Priority date (day/month/year) International Patent Classification (IPC) or both national classification and IPC Applicant 1. The written opinion established by the International Searching Authority: is is not considered to be a written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority. 2. This ________________________ (first, etc.) opinion contains indications relating to the following items: Box No. I Basis of the opinion Box No. II Priority Box No. III Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability Box No. IV Lack of unity of invention Box No. V Reasoned statement under Rule 66.2(a)(ii) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement Box No. VI Certain documents cited Box No. VII Certain defects in the international application Box No. VIII Certain observations on the international application 3. The applicant is hereby invited to reply to this opinion. When? See the time limit indicated above. The applicant may, before the expiration of that time limit, request this Authority to grant an extension, see Rule 66.2(e). How? By submitting a written reply, accompanied, where appropriate, by amendments, according to Rule 66.3. For the form and the language of the amendments, see Rules 55.3 and 66.8. Also For the examiner’s obligation to consider amendments and/or arguments, see Rule 66.4bis. For an informal communication with the examiner, see Rule 66.6. For an additional opportunity to submit amendments, see Rule 66.4. If no reply is filed, the international preliminary examination report will be established on the basis of this opinion. 4. The final date by which the international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II of the PCT) must be established according to Rule 69.2 is: __________________________________________ Name and mailing address of the IPEA/ Authorized officer Facsimile No. Telephone No. Form PCT/IPEA/408 (cover sheet) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. I International application No. Basis of the opinion 1. With regard to the language, this opinion has been established on the basis of: the international application in the language in which it was filed. a translation of the international application into _______________________________ which is the language of a translation furnished for the purposes of: international search (Rules 12.3(a) and 23.1(b)). publication of the international application (Rule 12.4(a)). international preliminary examination (Rules 55.2(a) and/or 55.3(a) and (b)). 2. With regard to the elements of the international application, this opinion has been established on the basis of (replacement sheets which have been furnished to the receiving Office in response to an invitation under Article 14 are referred to in this opinion as “originally filed.”): the international application as originally filed/furnished the description: pages ____________________________________________________________________ as originally filed/furnished pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ the claims: pages ____________________________________________________________________ as originally filed/furnished pages ____________________________________________ as amended (together with any statement) under Article 19 pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ the drawings: pages ____________________________________________________________________ as originally filed/furnished pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ pages ____________________________________ received by this Authority on _____________________________ a sequence listing - see Supplemental Box Relating to Sequence Listing. 3. The amendments have resulted in the cancellation of: the description, pages ____________________________________________________ the claims, Nos. _________________________________________________________ the drawings, sheets/figs __________________________________________________ the sequence listing (specify): ______________________________________________ 4. This opinion has been established as if (some of) the amendments listed below had not been made, since either they are considered to go beyond the disclosure as filed, or they were not accompanied by a letter indicating the basis for the amendments in the application as filed, as indicated in the Supplemental Box (Rules 70.2(c) and (c-bis)): the description, pages ____________________________________________________ the claims, Nos. _________________________________________________________ the drawings, sheets/figs __________________________________________________ the sequence listing (specify): ______________________________________________ 5. This opinion has been established: taking into account the rectification of an obvious mistake authorized by or notified to this Authority under Rule 91 (Rule 66.1(d-bis)). without taking into account the rectification of an obvious mistake authorized by or notified to this Authority under Rule 91 (Rule 66.4bis). 6. Supplementary international search report(s) from Authority(ies) ___________________________________________ has/have been received and taken into account in establishing this opinion (Rule 45bis.8(b) and (c)). Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. I) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. II 1. International application No. Priority This opinion has been established as if no priority had been claimed due to the failure to furnish within the prescribed time limit the requested: copy of the earlier application whose priority has been claimed (Rule 66.7(a)). translation of the earlier application whose priority has been claimed (Rule 66.7(b)). 2. This opinion has been established as if no priority had been claimed due to the fact that the priority claim has been found invalid (Rule 64.1). Thus for the purposes of this opinion, the international filing date indicated above is considered to be the relevant date. 3. Additional observations, if necessary: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. II) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. III International application No. Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability The questions whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non obvious), or to be industrially applicable have not been examined in respect of: the entire international application. claims Nos. _________________________________________________________________________________________ because: the said international application, or the said claims Nos. _____________________________________________________ relate to the following subject matter which does not require an international preliminary examination (specify): the description, claims or drawings (indicate particular elements below) or said claims Nos. ________________________ are so unclear that no meaningful opinion could be formed (specify): the claims, or said claims Nos. ________________________________________________ by the description that no meaningful opinion could be formed (specify): are so inadequately supported no international search report has been established for said claims Nos. _________________________________________ a meaningful opinion could not be formed without the sequence listing; the applicant did not, within the prescribed time limit: furnish a sequence listing on paper complying with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions, and such listing was not available to the International Preliminary Examining Authority in a form and manner acceptable to it. furnish a sequence listing in electronic form complying with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions, and such listing was not available to the International Preliminary Examining Authority in a form and manner acceptable to it. pay the required late furnishing fee for the furnishing of a sequence listing in response to an invitation under Rules 13ter.1(a) or (b) and 13ter.2. See Supplemental Box for further details. Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. III) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. IV 1. International application No. Lack of unity of invention In response to the invitation (Form PCT/IPEA/405) to restrict or pay additional fees the applicant has, within the applicable time limit: restricted the claims. paid additional fees. paid additional fees under protest and, where applicable, the protest fee. paid additional fees under protest but the applicable protest fee was not paid. neither restricted the claims nor paid additional fees. 2. 3. This Authority found that the requirement of unity of invention is not complied with for the following reasons and chose, according to Rule 68.1, not to invite the applicant to restrict or pay additional fees: Consequently, this opinion has been established in respect of the following parts of the international application: all parts. the parts relating to claims Nos. ______________________________________________________________________ Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. IV) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. V 1. International application No. Reasoned statement under Rule 66.2(a)(ii) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement Statement Novelty (N) Claims ______________________________________________________ YES ______________________________________________________ NO Claims ______________________________________________________ YES Claims 2. ______________________________________________________ NO Claims Industrial applicability (IA) ______________________________________________________ YES Claims Inventive step (IS) Claims ______________________________________________________ NO Citations and explanations: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. V) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. VI 1. Certain documents cited Certain published documents (Rule 70.10) Application No. Patent No. 2. International application No. Publication date (day/month/year) Filing date (day/month/year) Priority date (valid claim) (day/month/year) Non-written disclosures (Rule 70.9) Kind of non-written disclosure Date of non-written disclosure (day/month/year) Date of written disclosure referring to non-written disclosure (day/month/year) Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. VI) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY Box No. VII International application No. Certain defects in the international application The following defects in the form or contents of the international application have been noted: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. VII) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY International application No. Box No. VIII Certain observations on the international application The following observations on the clarity of the claims, description, and drawings or on the question whether the claims are fully supported by the description, are made: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Box No. VIII) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY International application No. Supplemental Box Relating to Sequence Listing Continuation of Box No. I, item 2: 1. With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed in the international application and necessary to the claimed invention, this opinion was established on the basis of a sequence listing filed or furnished: a. (means) on paper in electronic form b. (time) in the international application as filed together with the international application in electronic form subsequently to this Authority for the purposes of search and/or examination to this Authority as an amendment on ___________________________________________ 2. In addition, in the case that more than one version or copy of a sequence listing has been filed or furnished, the required statements that the information in the subsequent or additional copies is identical to that in the application as filed or does not go beyond the application as filed, as appropriate, were furnished. 3. Additional comments: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Supplemental Box Relating to Sequence Listing) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY International application No. Supplemental Box In case the space in any of the preceding boxes is not sufficient. Continuation of: Form PCT/IPEA/408 (Supplemental Box) (July 2011) American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com