<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<link id="MDHR_textcomplete" rel="stylesheet" href="moz-extension://b6d67f9b-745b-4d88-8e40-655fad8b67e0/vendor/textcomplete.css">
</head>
<body>
<p>CN, CA, & MX especially. CN gives a lot of weight but doesn't
implicitly follow. CA almost implicitly follows and just requires
some Canada-specific formality adjustments. MX (especially with
their new APG program) pretty much says they implicitly follow it.
KR & AU tend to be very impressed by it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>JP I have mixed results with. I often find they 'rehash' the
prosecution history and try to one-up the EP but don't seem to set
in as much as if I don't have a positive IPRP. Usually if I can
delay JP examination until I get allowable claims in US, then
their rejection will look very much like the US initial OA, and I
can make the same amendments as in US and point to the issued US
patent. I know that JP's obviousness analysis was originally based
off of US obviousness law, and so I feel like JP tends to put more
weight in a US obviousness analysis.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>US it depends -- I actually get <i>more</i> first-action
allowances when I enter PPH from EP than anything else, so my feel
is that they respect it, but don't follow it implicitly. My gut
feel is that this is due to a) our different obviousness analysis
(less technical / more 'gut feel' and arguably a higher hurdle
than EP), and b) the pressure on US examiners - different in
different art units - to not issue first-action allowances. The
cases I get first-action allowance tends to be cases where it's
easy to point to the contours of the prior art and the
distinctions. The cases I have to go another round in the US is
usually where the line is very fine and I feel the examiner is
covering their 'quality review' bases (I had one examiner raise a
101 rejection and tell me they agreed with me that it should be
withdrawn but just wanted to make sure it had been addressed in
the file history). However, I can <i>usually </i>get to
allowance in US with one OA when using PPH from positive EP
opinion. I find in software cases especially that it tends to
shorten the curve significantly because the examiners seem to feel
<i>less </i>required to make multiple rejections.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The US IPRP seems to be good quality lately (with my very limited
experience with it), and now that actual examiners are doing it
seems to be respected by the US, but I shy away from it in most
cases just because of the timing -- the one time I've done it in
the past few years (because clients were US first and not even
sure they were going to file outside of US but just wanted to
preserve options), USPTO didn't get it there in time for national
stage.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>FWIW, I tend to mentally divide the patent world into
EP-influenced examination countries and US-influenced examination
countries. EP countries includes most of Europe (obviously), Asia,
and South America. US countries are US and JP, with CA and MX
being more US analysis aligned but very accepting of EP.<br>
If you're going to file in EP, I find it's almost always more
cost-effective to do IPEA/EP because you essentially split US (and
JP if needed) off and handle them by getting PPH in US, getting to
allowance in US, and then leveraging in JP, and the rest you
pretty much ride through on the EP IPRP.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This sort of rambled but I hope it helps. Just my experience.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/9/2025 8:35 AM, Scott Nielson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:IA3PR11MB9087C77F112ED30833C29DA3B06BA@IA3PR11MB9087.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Thanks for this. What countries, other than China, seem to be
particularly impressed with a positive report from the EP? JP
and US don't seem to be impressed by a positive report from any
other country (curious if your experience is different).</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: rgb(31, 56, 100);"><b>Scott
Nielson</b></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: black;">801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>From:</b> Pct <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a> on
behalf of Timothy Snowden via Pct <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com"><pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 09, 2025 6:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com">pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com"><pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tdsnowden@outlook.com"><tdsnowden@outlook.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Pct] Different ISA and IPEA? </div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">As a side note, I
note that I frequently recommend clients to use IPEA/EP even
when we are planning to have more than 15 claims. If they raise
unity of invention, just pay the additional examination fees
(yes, you might have to pay additional search fees and
additional examination fees, although it's relatively rare).</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The amendment
requirements are strict, but once you know how to work with them
(or are using high quality EP counsel), then they're not
actually that bad -- many other countries also are very strict
on their amendments, so I tend to view it as a positive: if I
can make an amendment under EP, then it's
<i>almost</i> certain that anywhere else is going to accept it
too.<br>
Regarding the more than 1 type of claims, I almost always demand
an oral consult if we enter Chapter II proceedings, and I
explain to the EP examiner that I understand that they have to
make an
<i>observation</i> that certain claim practices (multiple
independent claims of same type, etc.) will have to be amended
in EP national stage, but I politely point out that these are
not
<i>international <u>defects</u></i> -- almost all EP examiners
are very understanding of this, and sympathize with the goal of
determining
<i>inventive step</i>, and leveraging the high quality EP work
product without necessarily conforming to EP-specific rules
until EP national stage is entered.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">I enjoy working
with KR -- they are very helpful, especially the US help center.
However, I rarely get the opportunity to use them because most
of the countries my clients are focused on a positive report
from EP makes a much bigger impact.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">To sum it up in EP
-- the amendments I understand, but I think that is actually a
feature. The numbers / types of claims can 99+% of the time be
cabined into a simple observation informing the applicant of
changes required in regional/national stage because they are EP
rules, not PCT rules. (So are the amendments, but that is a
matter of interpreting what is permissible as an amendment so
has a direct impact on a finding of inventive step).</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<div>On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Scott Nielson via Pct wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Thanks for the detailed explanation Carl. I reported the bug
in ePCT about the Philippines being an option as the IPEA.
Also, I had forgotten that the IPEA/US uses examiners to
perform the examination. The risk that they won't do anything
before the 30 month deadline is high enough that I cannot
imagine ever choosing IPEA/US. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I noticed something else that gives me pause. <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWAbf51698c-5952-772d-b452-29aeaffeb9ff" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#RO" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex C for RO/US</a> says Australia is a competent search
authority for only 250 PCT applications per quarter. There are
no subject matter limitations.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
However, <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" title="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWAaf46a614-987c-4c20-5005-5b95357268cc" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex C for RO/IB</a> says "Where the applicant is a
national or a resident of the United States of America, the
Australian Patent Office may be chosen as the competent
International Searching Authority and/or International
Preliminary Examining Authority for certain international
applications only. For further details concerning which
international applications this is restricted to, refer to
Official Notices (PCT Gazette) dated 23 October 2008, pages
131 et seq."</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The <a data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" title="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" class="OWAAutoLink" id="OWA10781d2f-6e02-3819-e098-6e4f74b96c79" href="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/docs/official-notices/officialnotices08.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">
PCT Gazette dated 23 Oct 2008</a> at p. 131 says IP
Australia will not be a competent ISA or IPEA for PCT apps
filed by US applicants "where such applications contain one or
more claims related to mechanical engineering or analogous
fields of technology." It then goes on to list a LOT of
technology IP Australia will not handle.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Do you know why Annex C for RO/US does not list any subject
matter restrictions for ISA/AU or IPEA/AU but Annex C for
RO/IB does? I wonder if the subject matter restrictions were
removed at some point and Annex C for RO/US was updated but
not for RO/IB.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Even though Annex C for RO/US lists a number of competent
ISAs, it seems like there are issues with many of them,
particularly AU, IL, JP, and PH (either limited numbers of
searches or limited subject matter). That said, I have used JP
and PH without problems so maybe I got lucky. The safe choices
appear to be EP, KR, SG, and US. SG is almost as expensive as
EP so it's hard to see why anyone would choose it.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The bottom line is that the choice of ISA for a large entity
is EP for a high quality, expensive search or KR for a cheap
search. For a small entity, the choice is the same except now
the US is also an option for the cheap search because it is
close in price to KR. In rare cases where circumstances
warrant, it might be worth choosing SG or rolling the dice
with AU, IL, JP, or PH.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="x_Signature">
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: rgb(31, 56, 100);"><b>Scott
Nielson</b></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: "Aptos Serif", Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, serif; color: black;">801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>From:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWA35708020-640f-9ecc-ebb4-ac3d5de62ec6" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 08, 2025 4:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For users of the PCT and ePCT. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice.
<a class="x_moz-txt-link-rfc2396E OWAAutoLink" id="OWA42e292ff-1fc8-6829-f46a-180dbd8f8caa" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">
<pct@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Pct] Different ISA and IPEA?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div>On 6/7/2025 9:36 AM, Scott Nielson via Pct wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>When does it make sense to select a patent office as the
ISA and a different patent office as the international
preliminary examination authority (IPEA)? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have a client that likes EP as the ISA but not as the
IPEA due to the EP's strict amendment requirements
(primarily basis and intermediate generalization issues).
According to ePCT, it is possible to choose KR, US, or PH
(Philippines) as a competent IPEA instead of EP (there is
some uncertainty about whether PH is competent; ePCT shows
it as an option but the US - Annex C of the PCT Applicant's
Guide lists PH as only competent if it was the ISA).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The only reason I can think of for doing this is as a
potentially cheap way to get a favorable IPRP and qualify
for the patent prosecution highway (PPH). The cost for each
IPEA is EP=1915EUR, US=880USD (can be reduced with
small/micro entity discount), KR=330USD, and PH=300USD.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The general idea would be to file the PCT application
with claims that are more like US claims (3 independent, 20
total) and select EP as the ISA. Once the International
Search Report is issued, request preliminary examination
with KR or US as the IPEA with the goal of getting a
favorable IPRP so national phase applications: (i) can be
expedited pursuant to the PPH and (ii) not be limited by EP
claim requirements (e.g., single apparatus/method claim;
total of 15 claims, etc.).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any thoughts on any of this?</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">When I teach a
2½-day PCT seminar (I have taught two within the past year and
another one is coming up) I spend time on this.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">See for example
<a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://www.oppedahl.com/cle/2022PCTTrainingSession8.pdf" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAd5158c8d-29ea-2066-bc0c-a00852a6ff7a" href="https://www.oppedahl.com/cle/2022PCTTrainingSession8.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">
these slides</a> at page 15, slide 29. That slide reminds
us that there are lots of "universal acceptors" -- IPEAs that
are happy to take your client's money for an international
preliminary examination regardless of whom your client
selected earlier as an ISA. </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Yes you are
correct that <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=PH&doc-lang=en#IPEA" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWA8079130d-e53f-937f-1b4d-d54a8f5c50bd" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=PH&doc-lang=en#IPEA" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex E for IPEA/PH</a> says that "[t]he Intellectual
Property Office of the Philippines may act as International
Preliminary Examining Authority only if the international
search is or has been carried out by it." And you are correct
that ePCT says the opposite.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">We learn from <a style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;" data-auth="NotApplicable" originalsrc="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#IPEA" class="x_OWAAutoLink" id="OWAe9136f9d-67d7-432b-081c-445dddbce066" href="https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=US&doc-lang=en#IPEA" moz-do-not-send="true">
Annex E for IPEA/US</a> that IPEA/US is not quite a
universal acceptor. It is a universal acceptor in the special
case where ... well here is what it says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">The USPTO may
act as International Preliminary Examining Authority only if
the international search is or has been performed by that
Office, except that the USPTO may act as International
Preliminary Examining Authority for international
applications filed by at least one resident or national of
the United States of America with the USPTO or the
International Bureau of WIPO as receiving Office where the
selected ISA is competent for residents or nationals of the
United States of America.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> Keep in mind
that this condition is evaluated at the time of entry into
Chapter II of the Treaty -- namely at the time of the filing
of the Demand. So for example an applicant that changed
domicile or citizenship between the international filing date
and the demand date might find that it is unable to use
IPEA/US as an IPEA under this complicated provision.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">But I digress.
So the bundle of questions, as presented, includes the notion
of actively choosing to purchase the services of an IPEA that
is not the same Office as the ISA that had been previously
hired.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">It is recalled
that the ISA work for ISA/US is not carried out by members of
USPTO's Examining Corps. It is carried out by one of several
private contractors who pitched cheap enough prices to the
USPTO to be awarded contracts for this work. So if you pick
ISA/US you don't get a member of the USPTO Examining Corps.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">it is also
recalled that against all odds, the IPEA work for IPEA/US
<b><i>is carried out by members of the USPTO's Examining
Corps.</i></b> But it is also recalled that sometimes
when you pick IPEA/US, the IPRP shows up way too late, well
past 30 months, so that the client is forced to make the
difficult and expensive decisions about national-phase entry
without having yes received the results from IPEA/US.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">No matter how
many reasons you consider for picking an IPEA other than
IPEA/EP, the plain fact that is worth more than money is that
if you pick IPEA/EP, and if IPEA/EP happens to agree that some
claims are patentable, then the EPO (at the time of
national/regional-phase entry) will almost surely "drink its
own champagne". Personally I rank this fact as a fact that
wins out over nearly all other facts.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">I would hire
experienced and trusted EP counsel at this stage to handle a
Demand directed to EPO, who would know how to handle what you
describe as "EP's strict amendment requirements". </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">I encourage any
reader who has not fallen asleep after this long posting to
consider signing up for my next 2½-day PCT seminar. If you
don't want to miss it, be sure that (a) you are a member of
the PCT listserv, and (b) you are subscribed to my blog.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<fieldset class="x_moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul class="dropdown-menu textcomplete-dropdown" style="display: none; position: absolute; z-index: 1000;" contenteditable="false" popover="auto">
</ul>
</body>
</html>