1 March 2017 (01-03-2017) SULLIVAN, BENJAMIN ALLEN [email protected]

Application No. Owner Title Classification Examiner

: : : : :

2,942,500 SULLIVAN, BENJAMIN ALLEN ESCALATOR PROFIT SYSTEM (EPS) G07F 17/32 (2006.01) Adrian Chitiu

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A REQUISITION BY THE EXAMINER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 30(2) OF THE PATENT RULES. IN ORDER TO AVOID ABANDONMENT UNDER PARAGRAPH 73(1)(a) OF THE PATENT ACT, A WRITTEN REPLY MUST BE RECEIVED WITHIN THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE ABOVE DATE. This application has been examined taking into account the applicant's correspondence received in this office on 17 October 2016 (17-10-2016). This application has only one (1) claim.

The examiner has identified the following defects in the application: Description The application does not comply with section 72 of the Patent Rules. Each of the petition, abstract, description, drawings and claims should start on a new page. The pages of the description and claims are not numbered consecutively and do not comply with subsection 73(1) of the Patent Rules. The description has not been presented in the proper manner and order and does not comply with section 80 of the Patent Rules. The description does not specify the technical field of the invention, describe the background art, describe the invention in terms allowing the understanding of the technical problem and its solution, nor set forth at least one mode for carrying out the invention. Abstract The abstract does not comply with section 79 of the Patent Rules. Subject to subsection 79(6) of the Patent Rules, the abstract should contain a concise summary of the matter contained in the

2,942,500

2

application and should specify the technical field to which the invention relates. The abstract should also be drafted such that the technical problem, the gist of the solution to said problem through the invention, and the uses of the invention are made clear. The abstract does not adequately summarize the matter contained in the application, and as such, is not an effective scanning tool for the purposes of searching a particular art. The abstract should not include figures, it should not make reference to a figure and should be up to 150 words long. The applicant can choose a representative drawing from the list if figures in the application to be added by the Patent Office on the application’s cover page. Drawings The petition’s abstract, description, and claims contains drawings and do not comply with subsection 74(1) of the Patent Rules. The figures in the description and claims are considered drawings and therefore should not form part of the abstract, description and claims. The description does not contain a brief description of all the figures and does not comply with paragraph 80(1)(e) of the Patent Rules. The drawings do not comply with section 82 of the Patent Rules. Reference characters not mentioned in the description should not appear in the drawings, and vice versa. The same reference character should be used to denote the same feature throughout the application. The application does not comply with section 37 of the Patent Act. As the alleged invention admits of illustration by means of drawings, the applicant should furnish drawings of the invention that clearly show all parts of the invention. Each drawing should include references corresponding to the description and should comply with section 82 of the Patent Rules. The drawings do not comply with section 82 of the Patent Rules. The drawings are not sufficiently dense and dark, well-defined lines to permit satisfactory reproduction. Some reference characters, letters and lead lines are not simple and clear. Claims Claims on file are indefinite and do not comply with subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act. These claims are not single sentences and do not end with a period, thereby causing a lack of clarity. Claims on file are not numbered consecutively and do not comply with section 85 of the Patent Rules. Claims on file unnecessarily refer to the drawings and do not comply with subsection 86(1) of the Patent Rules. Features of the invention should not, unless required, rely on references to the description or drawings. The technical features being defined can be described in words and, as such, reference to the drawings is not required.

2,942,500

3

Conclusion The whole application does not comply with the format and requirements under the Patent Act and the Patent Rules. The examiner recommends the applicant to follow the information on the CIPO web page: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00001.html. Under the Learn tab the applicant may find useful information. The Patent Tutorial link (under Learn tab) provides information with regards to the required format of a patent application. On the same page under “Online services” there is a link to a List of agents. While not necessary, the examiner recommends the applicant to use the services of a patent agent. Looking at the format of some patented applications would also help understand the Patent Office requirements. As the application des not clearly defines the invention and the protection sought in the claims, the search and substantive examination of the claimed subject matter have been deferred pending the applicant’s response to the present requisition. In view of the foregoing defects, the applicant is requisitioned, under subsection 30(2) of the Patent Rules, to amend the application in order to comply with the Patent Act and the Patent Rules or to provide arguments as to why the application does comply. Under section 34 of the Patent Rules, any amendment made in response to this requisition must be accompanied by a statement explaining the nature thereof, and how it corrects each of the above identified defects.

Adrian Chitiu Electrical Patent examiner 819-635-7447 As per CIPO Client Service Standards, a response to a telephone enquiry or voice mail should be provided by the end of the next business day. In the event that attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner's Section Head, Chaza Nasrallah, can be reached at 819-635-4148. CIPO values your feedback and invites you to complete a short and anonymous ongoing survey on patent examination products and services. You can access the survey at the following link: http://ic.sondages-surveys.ca/s/SCB-OPS/langeng. 2942500A_CAO.docm

The Examination Search Report is provided for reference only and is not part of any requisition made by the examiner in accordance with the Patent Act or Rules. The applicant is not required to respond to the information contained in the Examination Search Report.

Examination Search Report Box I: General Information Application No.

2,942,500

Search Report Date

Title

ESCALATOR PROFIT SYSTEM (EPS)

Examiner

Adrian Chitiu

2017-02-28

Search Conducted?

No

No search was conducted for the following reasons : - Search deferred - see report for reasoning (lack of unity, excluded subject matter etc.)

Yes

- Relied on previous search results (CIPO and/or by Foreign Office)

N/A

Box II: Family Prosecution Family Member

File Wrapper Reviewed

Status of Prosecution

Box III: Search History Claims Searched

Date of Search

Type of Search Conducted (select all that apply): Canadian first to file search Inventor/applicant search Comprehensive search

Search History from Databases Consulted: No Search Conducted Version 8

□ □ □

Supplemental/top up search Non laid open search In-house searcher

□ □ □