Your patent application received an adverse examination report
It has not been refused yet. You have a statutory term to respond, and the quality of that response decides whether the patent is granted or lost. We have taken over that response in files started by others: all 12 cases ended in grant.
How much time you have
The term depends on what you applied for, and the difference is significant. With a utility model you have half the time of an invention patent.
Sixty working days from notification. On request, extended by a further thirty working days.
Thirty working days from notification, extendable by fifteen further working days, once only and on request.
Halving the term is not an administrative practice: article 85 of Decision 486 provides that the rules on invention patents apply to utility models “except as regards the terms of processing, which shall be reduced by half”.
Responding is not enough
The rule does not say the patent is saved by replying within the term: it says that if despite the reply the impediments persist, the office refuses it anyway.
“The applicant shall reply to the notification within a period of sixty days following the date of notification. This period may be extended once only for a further thirty days. […] Where the applicant fails to reply within the specified period, or where despite the reply the impediments to grant persist, the competent national office shall refuse the patent.” Andean Community Decision 486, article 45
What the examination assesses
Substantive examination does not review the same things in an invention patent as in a utility model. Knowing which requirement was challenged determines how it is rebutted.
Invention patent
- Novelty
- Inventive step
- Industrial application
- Clarity of the claims
- Sufficiency of the description
Utility model
- Novelty
- Technical advantage
- Clarity of the claims
- Sufficiency of the description
Each objection is overcome differently
Many refusals are resolved with relative ease once you understand precisely what the examiner observed. Others demand substantive technical work. These are the routes by type of objection:
Usually a matter of drafting errors, easy to correct without touching the scope of protection.
May require a prior art search to show that the description enables a person skilled in the art to reproduce the invention.
Requires a thorough analysis of the technical features of the invention and expressing them correctly in the claim, so the difference from what is already disclosed becomes clear.
You must identify the features that make the invention non-obvious to a person normally skilled in the art, and sustain it with technical argument.
Consists of finding and evidencing the technical features that provide an advantage over the closest invention in the prior art.
In many of these cases it is necessary to rely on the Andean Community patent examination guidelines, which set the criteria the examiner applies. Arguing from that framework, rather than from intuition, is what separates a reply that succeeds from one that does not.
Our record in these cases
These are twelve applications originally filed by others in which we took over the response to the patentability examination. All twelve ended in grant. These are results obtained, not a guarantee: every file depends on its own technical content and on the prior art cited by the examiner. If, on reviewing your case, we conclude the objections cannot be overcome, we will tell you before you invest in a response.
How we handle your case
We read the report before accepting the engagement
We review the notification, the cited prior art and the application as filed. That yields an honest assessment: which objections can be overcome, which cannot, and with what realistic scope a grant might be achieved.
We set the strategy and the room for amendment
We decide what is rebutted by technical argument and what requires reformulating claims, taking care not to concede scope unnecessarily or introduce matter not originally disclosed.
We draft the response
Argument directed at each specific objection raised by the examiner, grounded in the original description, the prior art and the Andean examination guidelines, with the claim set adjusted where appropriate.
We stay with the file until resolution
Article 45 allows the office to issue two or more notifications. If a further requirement arrives, the defence continues along the same line of argument.
What to do now
The first thing is to know how many working days you have left. Have the date of the examination notification, the file number and whether your application is an invention patent or a utility model at hand. With that we can tell you straight away whether the extension should be requested before anything else.
We review the report and give you an assessment before you commit to anything. Fees are quoted according to the complexity of the case and the prior art cited, with a closed quote before we start. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is available beforehand.
If the term is close to expiring, message us on WhatsApp: it is the fastest route.
Has your application not reached substantive examination yet? See what each stage of the patent procedure costs and how long it takes. Was it a trademark that got refused? There is still time to rescue it.
Source: Decision 486 of the Commission of the Andean Community, Common Industrial Property Regime, articles 45 and 85 — in force in Peru. Official text available from the Court of Justice of the Andean Community. The exact terms applying to your file depend on the notification date and how it is counted before INDECOPI; this page is general information and does not constitute legal advice on a specific case.
Last verified: September 10, 2026.