（延續http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/03/101.html討論）
美國專利審查基準MPEP1893.03(d)（源自37 C.F.R. 1.499）規定的發明單一性（Unity of Invention），其中對於國際申請案進入美國階段的專利申請案考量發明單一性時，就是根據STF的定義，如以下準確的定義：
"As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art."
MPEP1893.03(d)摘錄：
特別提到，審查委員考量發明單一性時，不同於美國專利實務上的限制要求，而是針對國際申請案作出一般單一性考量。也就是，主張優先權進入美國，以及基於35USC371由國際申請組織（主要是指WIPO）進入美國國家階段的申請案有不同的考量。
"Examiners are reminded that unity of invention (not restriction practice pursuant to 37 CFR 1.141 - 1.146 ) is applicable in international applications (both Chapter I and II) and in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 . Restriction practice in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141 - 1.146 continues to apply to U.S. national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) , even if the application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365 (c) to an earlier international application designating the United States or to an earlier U.S. national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371."
進入美國國家階段的國際申請案審查時，USPTO仍會作出一般如「限制選擇」的要求，這雖不同於一般國家的實務，但是審查後，仍可在上位專利獲准後以rejoinder（重返程序）作出專利範圍重返的動作。
"The sections of the MPEP relating to double patenting rejections (MPEP § 8.4 ), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 8.8) , and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04 ) generally also apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371."
可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/10/rejoinder.html
這段提到，發明單一性的規定，即便各項技術分屬不同技術類別，但仍可以併入在同一組專利範圍內，也就是申請人可以在同一專利申請案中置入多項（甚至多項獨立項）具有共同技術特徵的請求項範圍。
"The principles of unity of invention are used to determine the types of claimed subject matter and the combinations of claims to different categories of invention that are permitted to be included in a single international or national stage patent application. See MPEP § 18.0 for a detailed discussion of Unity of Invention. The basic principle is that an application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, that applicant would have a right to include in a single application only those inventions which are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept."
這段提到「specially adapted」的問題。發明人若主張以一特定製程製作某產品（specially adapted），也就是主張的製程就是為了製作主張範圍內的產品，兩者之間確實具有技術關聯性，但是否可以被置入在同一專利案中？這裡提到，"specially adapted"並非隱含該產品不能被不同的製程所製造。
"A process is “specially adapted” for the manufacture of a product if the claimed process inherently produces the claimed product with the technical relationship being present between the claimed process and the claimed product. The expression “specially adapted” does not imply that the product could not also be manufactured by a different process."
這段討論「specifically designed」。當界定某裝置或手段為特別設計用以實現某程序時，裝置與流程具有技術關聯性，但是"specifically designed"卻非隱含該裝置或手段並非可以用於其他流程，也非隱含該流程不能使用其他裝置或手段。
"An apparatus or means is specifically designed for carrying out the process when the apparatus or means is suitable for carrying out the process with the technical relationship being present between the claimed apparatus or means and the claimed process. The expression specifically designed does not imply that the apparatus or means could not be used for carrying out another process, nor does it imply that the process could not be carried out using an alternative apparatus or means."
本段提供各申請人/發明人一個解套的方式（針對美國國際申請案）。
當審查委員先審理發明單一性，接著要求「選擇（election）」一組請求項作為審查範圍，當選擇的發明（elected）為可核准，非選擇（nonelected）的部分可以考慮重返（rejoinder），但非選擇的請求項範圍應包括前述可核准的限制條件。
"If an examiner (1) determines that the claims lack unity of invention and (2) requires election of a single invention, when all of the claims drawn to the elected invention are allowable (i.e., meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 , 102 , 103 and 112 ), the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Any nonelected product claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and any nonelected process claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable process claim, should be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04 ** . Any nonelected processes of making and/or using an allowable product should be considered for rejoinder ** . > The examiner should notify applicants of potential rejoinder of non-elected process claims by placing form paragraph 8.21.04 at the end of any lack of unity determination made between a product and a process of making the product or between a product and a process of using the product."
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言