State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.China
In the IPC/WG/13 Report,comments were invited on Project C432 in paragraph 26.
Comments were received from JP(A-13), EP(A-14), US(A-15), UK(A-16) and DE(A-17).
- JP has no objection to the policy in the new proposal rearranged in compliance with the botanical nomenclature. It would be desirable to correctly reflect the hierarchical relation of the botanical nomenclature in the classification. It is proposed to create a one-dot listing of Magnoliophyta (angiosperms) above A01N 65/08 and 65/40.
In addition, from the viewpoint of cost/benefit, JP considers that it is not necessary to create subdivisions in the new proposal any longer.
- EP points out the new consolidated proposal following botanical nomenclature and leaning on A61K36/00 of IPC 8 and restricting mainly to the family level has overcome the reservations.
EP still doubt, whether much value can be gained and the investment of reclassification is worthwhile. At least the latter will certainly have low priority for EP.
- US agrees with JP (A-13) and EP (A-14) that the new proposal is an improvement over the previous one. However, US still believes that the additional subdivisions are not needed in this area. Therefore it would not be cost effective for US to reclassify their document back file into an expanded A01N 65/00 scheme.
- UK indicates that a smaller, less detailed breakdown (if such can be worked out) may be a desirable way to reconcile the wide differences of opinion between the TO’s and some other commenting offices.
UK is also aware of the stated aim of the IPC to be an effective search tool, and one which is language-independent.
- DE agrees with the new proposal and the systematics used therein in principal, but in the opinion that an order which in addition includes Lichenes, Bryophyta and multi-cellular fungi (Basidiomycota) is essential. Lichenes and Basidiomycota should not just mentioned in the main group title of A01N65/00, but should represent a one-dot subgroup. DE also believes that the groups of Ferns and Fern allies should not be summarised.
Furthermore, DE does not agree with the family names itemized in parentheses. DE recommends that each subgroup should be accompanied by current Latin family names in parentheses to provide further explanation.Regarding further subdivisions,DE supports a less detailed breakdown which would result in nine major groups: Algae, Lichenes, Bryophyta, Basidiomycota, Fern allies, Ferns, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons.
JP、EP、UK and DE approve of the new consolidated proposal following botanical nomenclature and leaning on A61K36/00 of IPC 8 and restricting mainly to the family level.The opinion of DE is that an order which additionly includes Lichenes, Bryophyta and multi-cellular fungi (Basidiomycota) is essential,and also believes that the groups of Ferns and Fern allies should not be summarised,and hopes the result of nine major groups: Algae, Lichenes, Bryophyta, Basidiomycota, Fern allies, Ferns, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons.
US, JP and EP doubt that the investment in reclassification is worthwhile.
Rapporteur appreciates the comments by UK and DE, that the further subdivisions should be less detailed breakdown. We are still doing our best on improving the proposal.
We agree with DE’s comments on family names. Delete the family names itemized in parentheses,and each subgroup accompany the current Latin family names in parentheses to provide further explanation.
With respect to the comments of the hierarchical systematicsand in the view of the botanical taxonomy, DE’s the proposal of the nine major groups is appropriate; JP’s creating a one-dot group above the two dot items of A01N65/08 and 65/40 is appropriate too.
However, according to the statistic data of Chinese patent documents, the one-dot groups of Lichenes, Bryophyta, Basidiomycota, Fern allies and Ferns only cover few documents. And,as it is mentioned at the IPC/WG/13 Report, that subdivision of group A01N 65/00 at two levels would be sufficient for providing a well organized search file. If a one-dot listing of Magnoliophyta (angiosperms) is created, all subgroups of the family would become three-dot subgroups.Thus,it seems not necessary to provide these one-dot subgroups by now.
About the aspect of cost-effectiveness,Rapporteur agree with comment by UK that the aware of the stated aim of the IPC to be an effective search tool, and one which is language-independent.We think that although text searching is a good way , it is impossible for users to search all botanical pesticide documents in the world with one language(e.g. English or Latin). IPC is considered as an universal , language-independent search tool for the retrieval of patent information , which can overcome language barrier. Professional classification of the documents may improve the effectiveness of retrieval of patent information. In addition, IPC may be one of new patent-based indicators of technology trends and innovative activities on the basis of published patent statistics. It is the further enhancing of the utility of the IPC.