Manual of Patent Practice

Section 16: Publication of application

Sections (16.01 - 16.37) Last updated: October 2026.

Section 16(1)

Subject to section 22 below and to any prescribed restrictions, where an application has a date of filing, then, as soon as possible after the end of the prescribed period, the comptroller shall, unless the application is withdrawn or refused before preparations for its publication have been completed by the Patent Office, publish it as filed (including not only the original claims but also any amendments of those claims and new claims subsisting immediately before the completion of those preparations) and he may, if so requested by the applicant, publish it as aforesaid during that period, and in either event shall advertise the fact and date of its publication in the journal.

16.01

s.130(5) is also relevant

r.26(1) and r.26(2) is also relevant

References in the Act to publication of an application are to publication under s.16, the publication consisting of the application as filed including the original claims and also any amendments of those claims and any new claims subsisting immediately before the completion of preparations for publication (see 16.02). The application is published as soon as possible after the expiry of the period of eighteen months from the declared priority date or, where there is none, the filing date. On the publication date an “A document” is made available consisting, as far as possible, of (a) the specification as published; (b) a front page bearing the publication number, certain bibliographic data, classification information, a list of the documents cited in the search report under s.17, the abstract and any drawing selected to accompany the abstract; and (c) a copy of the external search report(s). If the examiner determined that a search would not serve a useful purpose under s.17(5)(b), a search report will not be included. The bibliographic data will not contain an inventor’s name if the comptroller has accepted an application from the inventor to waive their right to be mentioned (see 13.03). See 89A.14-89A14.2 regarding PCT applications entering the national phase under section 89.

[Deleted]

16.02

s.118(2) is also relevant

The determination as to when preparations for publication have been completed is made on a case by case basis. The hearing officer in Peabody International’s Application [1986] RPC 521 applied the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Intera Corporation’s Application [1986] RPC 459 that preparations have been completed when the print-out of the application data and the specification have been allocated to one of the printing contractors and are ready to be sent to or collected by them from Publishing Section. Following subsequent computerisation, the nearest equivalent point in the procedure is now selected. When an application is published in One IPO, this equates to preparations for publication being completed (‘PPC’) at the closure of the A Publication Workflow case, and is communicated to the applicant by issuance of a notification that the application has entered the publication process and is too late to withdraw the application to prevent publication. Once this notification has issued, the application will be published on the next Wednesday. Unless accelerated publication is requested (see 16.04), a letter issued with the search report explains that the application will be published after 18 months have passed from its filing date, or from its declared priority date if earlier. Once this date has passed, the application falls due for publication and the preparations for publication may begin imminently. The letter with the search report also advises the applicant that any amended or new claims for inclusion with the published application or any request to withdraw the application so as to prevent publication must be filed before the 18-month anniversary of the earliest date since it is not possible to withdraw an application from publication once the A Publication Workflow has closed. Shortly before the publication process begins, the applicant will be notified by letter that publication will begin imminently. Receipt of this letter should not be relied upon as a reminder if the applicant wishes to withdraw the application before publication as action should be taken before 18 months have passed from the earliest date. If accelerated publication has been requested, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient time after issue of the search report to file amended or new claims for inclusion with the published application or to request withdrawal before publication because the preparations for publication will be completed very soon after issue of the report. Unless accelerated publication is requested, completion will be at least eighteen months after the declared priority date or the filing date (when published in One IPO) and at least four weeks after the date of issue of the search report. The fact of publication is advertised in that issue of the Patents Journal which is published on the same date as the application, since information about the application may not be disclosed before the date of publication (except for the bibliographic information listed in r.55 which may be published earlier under s.118(3)(b), see 118.18.

16.03

s. 8; r.51 is also relevant

On the date of publication the file on the application becomes open to public inspection, as does the relevant entry in the Register. In particular, any amendments to the claims which were filed too late to be included in the published application and any amendments to the description or drawings, are published on that date by being open to public inspection, as is any matter omitted (other than under s.16(2) - see 16.34-16.37 from the A document, for example, in the circumstances referred to in 16.27. In addition, certain documents are available free of charge on the Office website through One IPO Search, the Office’s online patent information and document inspection service.

16.04

S.16(1) permits the publication of an application before the expiry of the period prescribed by r.26(1) at the request of the applicant. When such a request is made, an application should be sent for publication as soon as the necessary formal requirements have been complied with and a report under s.17(5) has been issued. The application is thus accelerated in that it is placed at the head of the queue waiting to be published. It is not necessary to give a reason for wanting accelerated publication. If the accelerated publication request is made whilst there are outstanding requirements, the service request related to the accelerated publication request will not be accepted and the applicant will be informed that there are outstanding requirements listed in the preliminary examination report. The applicant is invited to re-file their request for accelerated publication once the outstanding requirements have been addressed.

[ An application on which accelerated publication has been requested should have an ‘Accelerated Publication’ service tag applied to the search and publication cases with an annotation added to the publication case titles. If the application has a diary set by the examiner to return after publication, formalities should update it so that the case returns at the appropriate time after accelerated publication.]

[ There is no longer a 5-week publication cycle for applications published in One IPO. However, there are no established Office procedures for providing “instant” publication of an application. Once the notification has been issued informing the applicant that the publication process has begun, the application is published on the next Wednesday. ]

16.05

s.22(3)(a) is also relevant

An application on which, for security reasons, directions prohibiting publication have been imposed will not be published until such directions have been revoked.

16.06

r.8 is also relevant

Where there is a declared priority date the claim to priority is relinquished if the file number of the priority application and priority document is not filed within sixteen months (extendible in accordance with r.108(2) or (3), see 123.34-41), unless this requirement does not apply (see 5.08 to 5.10).If this occurs the applicant should be so informed and the declaration on Form 1 amended and COPS updated priority details in One IPO amended accordingly.  If the priority date so lost is the earliest or only date declared then the time when publication becomes due will be correspondingly later (see 16.01). An application should not be sent for publication until either the priority document has been filed or the priority date has been lost. Thus the filing of a priority document towards the end of the prescribed period will cause an application to be sent late for publication (see 16.31) and may thus delay publication under s.16 until after the end of the normal eighteen-month period. Publication should not however be delayed solely because a translation (when needed) of a priority document has not been filed.

16.07

s.118(3)(b) is also relevant

r.55 is also relevant

If an application has been withdrawn or treated as withdrawn or has been refused (either under s.15A(7) or, after a hearing following a preliminary objection (see 17.96.2), under s.18(3)) before the completion of preparations for publication, it will not be published, nor, subject to the exceptions provided for in s.118, will any of the documents become open to public inspection. However, the termination will be advertised in the Journal.

Content of the published application and ‘A’ document

The application as filed

16.08

s.130(4) is also relevant

The application must be published as filed, that is, in the state in which it was on the filing date. Therefore if any of the documents originally filed is subsequently replaced by another, for example because the original did not comply with formal requirements, the new document must conform essentially with the original. (See 14.30) for private applicant cases and 15A.22) for the situation where there is a discrepancy between formal and informal drawings). The A document will carry a notice (see 16.29) that replacement documents or drawings or formulae, as the case may be, were filed later than the filing date. (If the examiner has reframed the abstract (see 14.170-191) then the A document includes the abstract in its amended form instead of as originally filed.) A divisional application which as filed discloses additional matter may under s.76.(1) proceed following exclusion of the additional matter (see 76.02). However it should be published under s.16(1) as filed, that is including the additional matter (see also 15.35 and 15.39). The requirement to publish the application as filed includes any personal information in the specification.

[ If personal information is identified during the examining process in the as-filed specification, the examiner, heading examiner, or group head should immediately inform the applicant. The applicant should be given the opportunity to either withdraw their application and refile or proceed to publication with the personal information present. Claiming priority from an application containing personal information will not be an option if the applicant wishes to avoid publication of the personal information, as priority documents are made public on One IPO Search. Patent Practice Team should be contacted if the applicant expresses a desire for their personal information to be published.]

16.09

If the formalities examiner is unable to establish that the text of a replacement page is identical with that originally filed they should refer the matter to the search examiner. If the search examiner confirms that the original text is literally illegible (as distinct from merely difficult to read) then square brackets should be placed around the text replacing the illegible matter in the copy of the document to be published, and the front page should carry a notice, in addition to the notice referred to in 16.08, to the effect that matter so shown was submitted after the filing date to replace defective text. If no legible replacement for illegible matter is filed, arrangements should be made to omit it from the A document and to insert on the front page a notice that this has been done. In view of the serious consequences for the applicant which may follow an allegation that the application as filed contained illegible matter, the procedure referred to in this paragraph should be followed only when the examiner is satisfied that the original matter cannot be deciphered.

[ When the search examiner wishes illegible matter which has not been replaced by legible matter to be omitted from the A document, they should send the case to the appropriate formalities group for retyping and/or blanking out as appropriate. ]

16.10

In deciding the “as filed” state of an application, account should be taken of any documents relating to the application which were present in the Office at the close of business on the date of filing (or in the case of a divisional application, on the date of lodging of that application). Any such document or set of documents tending to complete an otherwise deficient application should be incorporated into the application, as should any alterations to the specification, whether in the form of replacement pages or proposed in a letter. If the resulting specification does not comply adequately with formal requirements (see 15A.05) objection should be raised under s.15A(3) making it clear what form of the application is being objected to.

16.11

Where two versions of a document were present on the filing date and the only difference is that one is formal and the other informal, then the formal version should be regarded as the effective one; the informal copy should be marked “INFORMAL”. Where there is a difference in substance between two versions of the same document, then, if the applicant has given explicit instructions, or if it is implicit or obvious which version is intended to be definitive, the application should be reconstituted accordingly.

[ If the formalities examiner is in doubt how to proceed they should consult the Formalities Manager and, if necessary, the Examination Support Operations Manager or relevant Deputy Director. If they are unsure the case should be referred to the Divisional Director. If they consider that the applicant’s intention is in doubt they should select which appears to them to be the most appropriate version and proceed as in 16.12. ]

16.12

If the applicant’s intention regarding amendments or different versions of the same document is in doubt they should be informed which version appears to the Office to be most appropriate and that, unless they indicate clearly their intentions within a specified short period (generally one month), that version will be treated as definitive. When the application is subsequently reconstituted (whether after a reply or not), the applicant should be informed in writing of the course taken.

[ Letter SL11 should be used in the first instance, and SL12 to inform the applicant of the action eventually taken. ]

16.13

[ Deleted ]

16.14

Where the description as filed is in a foreign language and is not accompanied by a translation, see 15.06.1-2. If a translation is filed, the A document will carry a notice (see 16.29) that the specification was originally filed in a foreign language.

Later-filed claims

16.15

The published application includes not only the specification in the state in which it was on the date of filing but also original claims filed later than the filing date within the period prescribed by r.19(1) and (3). The front page of the A document should carry a notice (see 16.29) that the claims were filed later than the filing date of the application, but the actual date on which the claims were filed will not be referred to in the published application.

Amended or new claims

16.16

Amendments to original claims, or new claims, are also included in the published application, provided they are filed before preparations for publication have been completed. (The actual date on which they were filed is not material and is not mentioned in the A document). Since the publication is required to include, in addition to original claims, only those amended or new claims which subsist immediately before completion of preparations for publication, any amended or new claims which have been in the meantime further amended or cancelled are not included. The amended or new claims are included in the A document if they are available in a suitable form for direct reproduction with the original description and claims. For this purpose, it is necessary for all the changes to appear on fresh pages which are self-explanatory and do not rely on instructions in a covering letter. The first such page should preferably be suitably headed, eg “Amendments to the claims”. If suitable pages are not received by the time preparations for publication are completed the amended or new claims are omitted from the A document but published by inclusion in the file laid open to public inspection: a notice on the front page of the A document indicates that amended or new claims unsuitable for reproduction have been filed.

16.17

As a consequence of the wording of s.16(1), if a prohibition order under s.22 is revoked but the application is published under s.16 only after substantive examination the published application will include both the claims in their original form and (if they have been amended) the claims of the application as in order for grant.

16.18

When amendments to the claims, or new claims, are filed they should be checked and collated for inclusion in the A document by the formalities examiner. Amended or new claims are to be published with the original claims only if the changes to the claims are filed as fresh pages meeting the requirements of r.14 and Schedule 2. The applicant or agent should be informed of any deficiency but publication should not be delayed to await any response. The formalities examiner should consult or refer the application to the search examiner for advice when necessary.

[No attempt should be made to edit new sets of claims to avoid unnecessary repetition of the wording of the original claims nor add explanatory text. Furthermore, unless new claims are received before the search (see 17.35), they should not be considered for any lack of clarity as to the precise effect of the changes on the existing claims until substantive examination. Applicants and agents are encouraged to provide a heading identifying the fresh pages as relating to changes to the claims.

When new or amended claims are filed the formalities examiner should check that they meet the requirements of r.14 and Schedule. New or amended claims should be filed as a complete set, but if they are not, the formalities examiner may assemble them to create a full set (or alternatively request a complete set is filed). The pages of new or amended claims and external search report should be renumbered as appropriate. After publication, the amended claims should be annotated “Working Copy” by the formalities examiner.

If on receipt of new or amended claims

(a) the search report has not yet issued
(b) a report, such as letters SL2 or SL2PA, that no search is possible has already issued
(c) new or amended claims have already been filed
(d) there is a gap in the numbering of the new or amended claims, or
(e) there is reason to doubt that what has been filed are new or amended claims, the application should be referred to the subclass or search examiner. ]

[Amendments containing personal information should only be published or placed on One IPO Search with the explicit, written consent of the applicant. Extra checks should be conducted before A and B publication to ensure consent has not been rescinded. The Formalities examiner is responsible for ensuring these checks are completed and should liaise with Publishing and the Patent Examiner as necessary. If the amendments contain sensitive personal information which the applicant subsequently removes through filing further amendments, the original pages should not be placed on One IPO Search or made OPI, they should be redacted and deleted as necessary by the Formalities examiner.]

16.19

Unless amended or new claims are filed under r.31(5)(a) before search, no attempt should be made to establish whether they introduce new subject-matter. Amended or new claims allowed under r.31(5)(a) or filed at the applicant’s own volition under r.31(4) are published as filed, subject to the omission of matter under s.16(2).

Other amendments, corrections or alterations

16.20

s.118 is also relevant

Any amendments to the specification other than the claims are not included in the A document, although they do become open to public inspection on the publication date.

r.31(5)(b)and r.49 is also relevant

16.21

Any amendment to the Request for Grant (Form 1 if made on paper) is however included, provided that the proposed amendment has been requested before preparations for publication have been completed (see 19.05-19.12 and 32.06); the front page of the A document will bear an appropriate notice (see 16.29) eg that such amendment has been made under r.31(5) or under r.49(1). (If the amendment concerns the declaration of priority the date on which the application is due to be sent for publication may need to be revised - see 16.01.

16.22

If it is requested that the application proceed in the name of a person other than the original applicant, for example because the application has been assigned under s.30, or because the original applicant has died and the application is to proceed in the name of the deceased’s personal representative, then, provided the change has been effected before preparations for publication have been completed, the A document will reflect the change and will carry an appropriate footnote (see 16.29). (See also 19.09).

16.23

r.105(1) and r.49(1) is also relevant

If correction of a clerical error (see s.117) is sought and allowed before completion of preparations for publication, the application will be published as corrected and the A document will bear a notice (see 16.29) that a correction has been made. Except in the case of a name (where correction must be requested on Form 20 or using One IPO to update the name on applications and patents), an error may be rectified merely by written notification (see 117.03); if no form has been received in the case of a request for correction of a name, the examiner should ask by telephone that it be filed. Reasonable time should be allowed for this, although a case should not be retained on this account for long after it is due to be sent for publication. If no Form (or suitable evidence) is forthcoming the application should proceed to publication uncorrected, and the matter may be dealt with afterwards.

16.24

If an application contains an applicant’s or agent’s identifying reference to another application filed on the same day or earlier under the 1977 Act, the search examiner should supplement it by the application number, even if it is necessary to telephone the applicant or agent to ascertain the number. All other references are published as filed.

16.25

s.19(2) is also relevant

The comptroller may, of their own volition, amend the specification contained in an application in order to acknowledge a registered trade mark (see 19.23- 19.26).

16.26

Since the Office is under a statutory obligation to publish an application in the conditions in which it was filed, subject only to the derogation of s.16(2), if an application contains matter accompanied by wording suggesting that the copyright is owned by a person other than the applicant, then it must still be published as filed.

Computer programs, biological sequence listings and other bulky ancillary material

16.27

Computer programs, and nucleic acid or protein sequences listings, ancillary to the main text and extending over many pages are unduly burdensome to include in the published specification. This is also the case with other extensive material clearly ancillary to the main text. Therefore, if an application contains such a program, sequence listing or material, it is normally omitted from the A document at the discretion of the examiner, although of course it remains part of the published application and becomes open to public inspection on the publication date (see also 24.04). A notice referring to the omission should be included on the front page (see 16.29). If however the search examiner considers that the program or other material would facilitate a ready understanding of the invention it may be included in the A document.

[ If the program or other ancillary material is to be omitted from the A document the examiner should minute the timeline of the case to instruct Formalities which pages of the application are not to be included. The minute should also instruct Formalities that the appropriate common standard text (see 16.29) relating to computer programs et al is to be included on the front page of the A document. If other material is to be omitted, the minute should include details of an appropriate non- standard text. ]

16.28

If the pages of a computer program, sequence listing or other ancillary material do not comply with r.14 and Schedule 2 the formalities examiner should report accordingly, but no objection should be raised unless the pages are to be included in the A document or are unsuitable for reproduction in response to a request for an uncertified copy of a patent (Form 23 if made on paper) after publication. (If the applicant retains the pages in the specification, objection should be made during substantive examination).

Final procedure

16.29

When one or more notices is to be included on the front page of the A document, the formalities examiner and/or the search examiner should give appropriate instructions. An annex to this chapter details common notices for inclusion on the frontpage.

[ Where appropriate, the search examiner should add a minute to the timeline instructing Formalities which of the standard texts (see Annex to this chapter detailing a list of notices)) are to be included on the front page of the A document, and, when necessary, outlining the exact wording of any non-standard texts to be inserted. This data will subsequently be inputted for preparation of front page data. Note that, the text of pre-printed notices should not be altered in any way, save the non-standard text relating to drawings omitted under s.15(5) or (6) which requires completion. ]

[As part of the pre-A publication checks, formalities examiners should check all documents and consider if personal or sensitive information contained therein should be redacted for One IPO Search. After publication, formalities examiners should check all incoming documents as they are received and redact as necessary.]

[Any personal information, either at the head or foot of the correspondence or in the body of the text, should be redacted. ]

16.30

When the search examiner issues the search report and any documents cited thereon (see 17.104, 17.104.1) or a report that a search would serve no useful purpose, they should normally authorise publication of the application, regardless of whether this is yet due, whether or not there are any outstanding formal objections and whether formal or formula drawings are awaited. They should not however authorise publication if the abstract is awaited.

[The search examiner should record the appropriate status as. “Search completed – prepare for publication”. This applies when the application will be in order for A-publication with respect to the examiner’s requirements once the search report has been issued. It also applies to PCT national phase applications which have been classified and are ready for republication. This status should also be used when an application is in order for publication having previously had a status recorded as “Review in progress – awaiting applicant response” or “Search in progress”. Processing status “Search in progress” should be used when a formal search or CS&E has been carried out but for some reason the examiner needs to see the dossier again before it is sent for publication. This is most often used when no abstract has yet been filed. ]

16.31

If formalities have been complied with and unless accelerated publication is requested (see 16.04), the application should be sent for publication 18 months after the earliest declared priority date or, where there is none, the filing date, provided that 4 weeks have elapsed since issue of the search report. When accelerated publication is wanted the application should be sent for publication immediately because the normal 4 week wait after issue of the search report is taken to be waived.

[ The formalities examiner will check the date of intended publication and adjust as appropriate for accelerated publication. Once this check has been completed the application will be set ready for A-publication. At the start of the publication process the appropriate applications are picked and transferred to Publishing Section. Divisional applications, s.89 PCT applications and applications undergoing accelerated publication are prioritised over other applications waiting to be published.]

[Deleted]

16.32

If formalities have not been complied with or if the 18 months has not yet passed (provided accelerated publication is not requested) publication should be deferred, the application being sent for publication at the appropriate time and after any objections have been met without, in general, being referred to the examiner. Applications should however be referred to the search examiner if necessary upon the filing of amendments or formal drawings or formula drawings (see 15A.22 16.09 and 16.18), or if a letter needing the examiner’s attention or a request for further search is received. In such circumstances, the documents selected for publication may need amending before publication. If the search examiner updates or corrects the search prior to publication, the corrected report will be placed on file and formalities should ensure that the altered report is published, with the original is cancelled. If an incorrect search report is published or the search report is omitted altogether, an erratum should be raised.

[Deleted]

[Once all the formalities are complied with, the application should be transferred to Publishing Section, or the application should be referred to the search examiner, whichever is appropriate.

[ When the search examiner has dealt with any such matters referred to them after issue of the search report (see the second sentence of 16.32),then they should refer the application to the appropriate formalities group, after setting the appropriate status if they have not already done so (see list in 18.47). The formalities group will resume responsibility for forwarding the application to Publishing Section at the appropriate time.]

Correction of printer’s errors

16.33

If the A document contains a printer’s error, whether in the specification, the bibliographic or classification data or in a footnote (see 16.29) or in the search report, it may be corrected by the issue of an erratum. In this context, “printer’s error” is interpreted broadly to embrace any error originating within the Office or during the publication process. However, it does not extend to errors made elsewhere, such as by the applicant. (See also 14.191).

[ An erratum should not be issued to correct an error in the specification which is detected by the search/substantive examiner unless the error is significant, in the sense that it misleads or introduces doubt. An erratum should be issued for an error in the specification which is notified by the applicant or by a member of the public or for any error in the bibliographic or classification data or the footnotes or for an omitted footnote. An erratum should also be issued whenever an error is found in an external search report or when an additional citation is found before A-publication (see also 17.105), but where in each case it is too late for the amended or corrected external search report form to be incorporated in the A document. No erratum is necessary in respect of citations found after A-publication.

[ As soon as a search/substantive examiner appreciates that the classification assigned to an A document is erroneous and/or does not reflect fully the disclosure of an inventive concept or other significant disclosure, the classification held in the One IPO internal system should be updated with the classification that the document should have carried at the date of A publication.]

[ When the search/substantive examiner detects a significant error in the specification or any other error requiring correction, the Publishing team should be instructed to arrange for the production and issue of an erratum. Where the correction relates to classification or field of search bibliographic data, is in the text of the specification or abstract, or is complex, the search/substantive examiner should give precise instructions concerning the content and location of each deletion and insertion before referring the application. When errors are brought to the attention of a formalities group other than by search or substantive examiners, the formalities group will not normally consult the relevant examiner except in respect of technical matters. ]

Section 16(2)
The comptroller may omit from the specification of a published application for a patent any matter - (a) which in his opinion disparages any person in a way likely to damage him, or (b) the publication or exploitation of which would in his opinion be generally expected to encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behaviour	.

16.34

While the search examiner should not specially look for material of the kind referred to in s.16(2), where they become aware of such matter which is in their opinion both evident and blatant they should take steps to see that it is withheld from publication. The published specification will contain a statement at the place(s) concerned that “certain matter has here been suppressed from publication under Section 16(2)”. If a specification is either completely offensive or is so riddled with offending matter that publication of any text would appear ridiculous, the whole of the specification may be suppressed. Care should be taken that any matter which it is considered should be omitted under s.16(2) is not only absent from the A document but also will not become open to public inspection after the publication date. Rule 51(2)(d) provides the same power in respect of documents other than the published application (see 118.07).

[ If formalities notice matter which may require omission under s.16(2) the document code should be changed to “ERRATA-NOPI” and the document annotated as “Not Open to Public Inspection”. A minute should be added to the timeline clearly and unequivocally identifying the matter to be suppressed and the reasons for it being withheld from publication. The examiner should then be informed of the matter.]

[ If the examiner becomes aware of matter which may require omission under s.16(2) they should immediately change the document code and annotate accordingly.]

[ The Group Head should be consulted and the examiner should redact the matter concerned. Once this has been done the redacted version should be annotated appropriately and given the appropriate document code. The original version should retain the document code ERRATA-NOPI and should not be made public following publication.]

[ If the highlighted material is not considered offensive or libellous, and may therefore be open to public inspection, the examiner should reinstate the original document code, remove any annotation and set public following publication.]

16.35

Statements which are critical of prior inventions (whether identified, eg by reference to specific patents, or not) should be regarded as falling within the scope of s.16(2)(a) only if they are explicitly disparaging of a person (natural or corporate) or if by very clear implication they reflect adversely on the character or competence of any person. Mere statements that prior inventions are in some way unsatisfactory cannot be omitted under s.16(2)(a).

16.36

The question as to what would be considered to encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behaviour is discussed in paragraphs 1.52 - 1.56.

s.97(1)(b) is also relevant

16.37

Although there is no appeal from a decision of the comptroller under s.16(2), the applicant should be informed that matter is to be omitted under this subsection from their application as published. The substantive examiner may be required to consider whether the matter may be restored before grant.

Annex – Notices for front page of A Document

• at least one drawing originally filed was informal and the print reproduced here is taken from a later filed formal copy

• the claims were filed later than the filing date but within the period prescribed by Rule 22(1) of the Patents Rules 2007

• this print takes account of replacement documents submitted after the date of filing to enable the application to comply with the formal requirements of the Patents Rules 2007

• this print incorporates corrections made under Section 117(1) of the Patents Act 1977.
• The date of filing shown above is that provisionally accorded to the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(9) of the Patents Act 1977 and is subject to ratification or amendment.

• The print reflects an assignment of the application under the provisions of Section 30 of the Patents Act 1977

• at least one of these pages has been prepared from an original which was unsuitable for direct photo reproduction

• this print reflects amendment of the request for grant in accordance with Rule 31(6) of the Patents Rules 2007

• missing or illegible matter in the text of the specification as filed is indicated by the blank space(s) between brackets in the printed copy

• the matter shown between square brackets was submitted after the filing date of the application to replace defective text

• the references to the drawings in the printed specification are to be treated as omitted under Section 15(5) or (6) of the Patents Act 1977

• the information required by Schedule 1 to the Patents Rules 2007 paragraph 3(2)(a) or 3(2)(b) was not contained in the application as filed, but was supplied later in accordance with paragraph 3(3) of that Schedule

• the specification as filed includes a computer program which is not reproduced here; it may be inspected in accordance with Section 118 of the Patents Act 1977

• the original applicant is deceased; the application is proceeding in the name of the personal representative

• the priority details shown above contain a late declaration of priority made under Section 5(2B) of the Patents Act 1977 and Rule 7

• at least some of the priority details shown above were added after the date of filing of the application

• the reference to figure(s) XX of the drawings in the printed specification are to be treated as omitted under Section 15(5) or (6) of the Patents Act 1977

• pages XX of the specification are to be treated as omitted under Section 15(5) or (6) of the Patents Act 1977

The provisions of paragraph 6 and 7 of Schedule 1 to the Patents Rules 2007 have effect in respect of this application, restricting availability of samples of specified biological material to experts in accordance with those provisions.