情況是：
審查中（copending）的兩件或多件專利申請案係由相同的申請人、或有共同發明人、或由同一授讓人、或在共同研發合同等條件下提出申請，且符合103(c)(2)(3)的條件，也就是其前後案關係涉及102新穎性不足的問題，而其中之一件已經獲得專利，可能會有重複專利（double patenting）的問題。
暫時核駁：
當前述情況中，因為在其中之一申請案獲得專利（become a patent）時，將會遭遇重複專利的問題，因此即便其中案件並未獲取專利，審查委員可以因為兩者可能有不同卻衝突的專利範圍（conflicting claims are not identical）而發出暫時核駁（provisional rejection），不用等到其中之一獲准專利。
解決方式：terminal disclaimer
此類重複專利核駁稱為「provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection」，如果申請人並未提出期末拋棄（terminal disclaimer），則僅會讓先申請案獲准專利，後申請案不予專利。
（updated on Jan. 11, 2017）
情況一：
如果兩件審理中申請案（pending applications）中「前申請案」僅有「暫時性非法定顯而易見性重複專利（provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting）」核駁意見，而「後申請案」有其他可被核駁的理由，審查委員應在不用提出「terminal disclaimer」情況下准予「前申請案」並撤銷相關核駁理由。「後申請案」自然還要面對其他核駁意見。
情況二：
反過來，如果「後申請案」僅面對了重複專利的核駁意見，而「前申請案」還有其他核駁意見，後申請案可以「terminal disclaimer」克服重複專利的問題。
情況三：
如果前後兩件尚未審定的申請案都僅面對「暫時性非法定重複專利」的核駁意見，審查委員應對「前申請案」撤銷重複專利審查意見，並在不用提出「terminal disclaimer」的情況下核准「前申請案」專利。而對「後申請案」來說，「terminal disclaimer」為必要，而能讓審查委員撤銷重複專利核駁意見，並核准專利。
情況四：
如果兩件申請案同一天提出申請，審查委員應判斷何為基礎案，何為改良案（有額外限制特徵），而其中基礎案可以在不用「terminal disclaimer」情況下撤銷重複專利的核駁意見，並准予專利。而「改良案」應提出「terminal disclaimer」才能獲准專利。（也就是，如果兩件（或多件）申請案同一天提出申請，審查委員應判斷何為基礎案，何為改良案，若無提出terminal disclaimer，基礎案的核駁可被撤回。）
因此，對其後申請案發出期末拋棄可以解決nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection；若僅是暫時性核駁，則可待兩件專利申請案是否會准予專利再決定是否提出terminal disclaimer。
註：terminal disclaimer不能克服statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection
這裡有一例，先提出重複專利的問題，說明重複專利造成專利這個排他權（right to exclude）不當延長，也避免專利權同時授與不同人的困擾。
[英文]
B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections
Occasionally, the examiner becomes aware of two copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, or by different inventive entities having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.
The “provisional” double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner in each application as long as there are conflicting claims in more than one application unless that “provisional” double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in at least one of the applications.
1. Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
If a "provisional" nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection is the only rejection remaining in the earlier filed of the two pending applications, while the later-filed application is rejectable on other grounds, the examiner should withdraw that rejection and permit the earlier-filed application to issue as a patent without a terminal disclaimer. If the ODP rejection is the only rejection remaining in the later-filed application, while the earlier-filed application is rejectable on other grounds, a terminal disclaimer must be required in the later-filed application before the rejection can be withdrawn.
If "provisional" ODP rejections in two applications are the only rejections remaining in those applications, the examiner should withdraw the ODP rejection in the earlier filed application thereby permitting that application to issue without need of a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer must be required in the later-filed application before the ODP rejection can be withdrawn and the application permitted to issue. If both applications are filed on the same day, the examiner should determine which application claims the base invention and which application claims the improvement (added limitations). The ODP rejection in the base application can be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer, while the ODP rejection in the improvement application cannot be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer.
Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that an ODP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to link all three together. This is because a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a double patenting rejection is effective only with respect to the application in which the terminal disclaimer is filed; it is not effective to link the other two applications to each other.
Ron
參考MPEP804 Definition of Double Patenting
沒有留言:
張貼留言