Convergence of practice – Questionnaire on status of voluntary implementation

Dear colleagues,

We're reaching out to kindly request your participation in a questionnaire designed to gather information on the progress of our Convergence of Practice program. This will help all of us to obtain a complete and reliable picture of how the latest two common practices on “Issuing and accepting electronic priority documents” and “Allowable features in drawings” are being implemented. 

The questionnaire comprises 2 sub-sections, each containing a set of YES/NO questions. 

Please select the contracting state your response relates to by selecting a country from the drop-down menu before starting to fill in the two questionnaires.

To expand or hide one or several sub-sections for each questionnaire, please click on the respective button/s next to the two headings. Feel free to share the questionnaire link with your colleagues. 

We've taken great care to ensure that you do not spend too much time on this questionnaire. Please kindly complete all the both sub-sections by 31.03.2025.

Many thanks for your cooperation!

Please check to expand the questionnaire sections

7. Common practice as regards allowable features in drawings

7.1. Does your office require the request for a patent, the description, the claims and the abstract to not contain drawings?
7.2. Does your office prescribe minimum margins for sheets containing drawings of the following amounts: top side 2.5 cm; left side 2.5 cm; right side 1.5 cm; bottom 1.0 cm?
7.3. Does your office provide for the submission of drawings in grayscale and colour, also?
7.4(a). Does your office permit the filing of photographs as drawings?
7.4(b). Does your office require photographs to fulfil the applicable requirements for drawings?
7.5. Does your office require the figures in drawings to be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals, independently of the numbering of the sheets?
7.6. Does your office provide that drawings are not to contain statements or other matter contrary to “ordre public” or morality?
7.7. Does your office prescribe that cross-sections are to be indicated by hatching that does not impede the clear reading of the reference signs and leading lines?
7.8. Does your office provide that reference signs not mentioned in the description or claims are not to appear in the drawings, and vice versa?
7.9. Does your office provide that drawings are not to contain text matter, except where indispensable to understand the drawings, a few short keywords, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB"?

8. Common practice as regards issuing and accepting electronic priority documents

8.1(a) Does your office provide access to electronic priority documents via digital libraries, particularly via the WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS), in line with the requirements of these services?
8.1(b) Does your office issue electronic priority documents to applicants in the manner specified in the common practice as regards issuing and accepting electronic priority documents in the section “structure and format of electronic priority documents issued to applicants”, copied below?
Common practice as regards issuing and accepting electronic priority documents [PDF]
More

- Electronic priority documents issued to applicants should consist of a "wrapping" archive (ZIP) file that contains: a) a "substantive" archive (ZIP) file with the substantive content of the priority b) a "signature" PDF file that is electronically signed and that contains a cryptographic hash of the "substantive" ZIP file together with an indication of the algorithm used, thereby certifying the integrity of the "substantive" ZIP file's content and structure. In addition, in this PDF the office may add text that certifies the copy and the filing date as correct, as well as other information needed for it to be considered the front page. 

- The files making up the electronic priority document should be compliant with existing WIPO standards where applicable, in particular Annex F to the Administrative Instructions under the PCT. This includes WIPO ST.36, and ST.26 or ST.25 if there is a sequence listing. 

- The "substantive" ZIP file should contain a "substantive" PDF version of the priority application together with the application documents in the format originally filed, which could include DOCX or XML. Sequence listings are to be included in the originally filed format (ST.25 text, ST.25 PDF or ST.26 XML). 

- Offices are encouraged to include in the "substantive" ZIP file complementary XML files provided by the office and containing structured data, such as the texts included in the PDF. Offices not providing an XML file containing the PDF content are encouraged to include readable structured data in the PDF version of the priority document. 

- For the sake of clarity, offices should include in the "substantive" ZIP file an index file that provides a description of all the content. The index file should indicate for each item whether it is the document in the data format as originally filed or as subsequently provided by the office. 

- If licensed fonts are used in the PDF, these fonts should be embedded into it. 

- PDF and DOCX documents should be page-based in an A4 format suitable for printing. XML files are not page-based and may be rendered using the corresponding national or WIPO style sheets as a printable, page-based A4 format. 

- The archive file should be created using the ZIP standard. ZIP is a de facto industry standard for archive file formats and is in line with Annex F to the Administrative Instructions under the PCT (see explanatory remarks). The software used to create the ZIP file must conform to the ZIP file format specification as published in the PKWARE® PKZIP® Application Note (Revised: 01.08.1998). 

- The cryptographic hash should be generated using a cryptographic hash function which is a widely adopted, de facto industry standard hash algorithm. At present this is SHA-256.

8.1(c) Does your office accept accept priority documents issued in the same manner as in the previous question?
8.1(d) Does your office offer the option to have priority documents issued on paper in cases where this is legally required?
8.2(a) Does your office use qualified certificates for electronic signature of priority documents within the meaning of Article 3(15) and Annex I to the eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014?
8.2(b) Is the trust service provider used by your office established in the European Union, or in a third country under the condition that the provider is recognised as legally equivalent (Article 14 eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014)?
8.2(c) Does the trust service provider used by your office appear on the European Union’s trusted lists, and on the Adobe Approved Trust List (AATL)?
8.3(a) Does your office embed the electronic signature produced with the qualified certificate in the “signature” PDF document included in the “wrapping” archive (ZIP) file?
8.3(b) Does your office ensure the electronic signature is visible on the "signature" PDF document for printing?
8.3(c) Is the machine-readable electronic meta-data of the signature also embedded in the "signature" PDF document and accessible for validation by standard electronic signature validation tools?
8.4. Does your office transfer electronic priority documents to users via a secure means of transmittal which ensures access is given only to entitled parties to proceedings?
8.5. Does your office share your technical specifications for issuing electronic priority documents with other offices, to facilitate validations at the office of second filing, without prejudice to your office’s ownership of intellectual property related to your office’s information technology systems?
8.6(a). Does your office not impose size limitations when accepting electronic priority documents, or offer alternative options for receiving electronic priority documents that exceed standard size limitations?
8.6(b). Does your office make colour available in electronic priority documents?
8.7 Does your office consider certified electronic priority documents to be indefinitely valid?