當post-AIA申請案主張pre-AIA申請案優先權日的益處時...

筆記

延續前篇討論「CIP母案可能為CIP案先前技術的討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/cipcip.html）」的議題，看到知名網站LAW360的文章，又想要筆記一下！

當post-AIA申請案主張pre-AIA申請案申請日的好處時...，這個問題就是發生在2013年3月實施美國AIA改革法案起前後的案子，也就是，post-AIA主要的特徵依據「有效申請日/優先權日」作為前案檢索的基準日，但pre-AIA則是參考完成發明的那天，但是過渡時期就是會發生AIA實施後的申請案主張AIA實施前的優先權日的情況，這就產生了問題。

MPEP2159規定審查委員在審查時應考量專利範圍到底是適用AIA之前的102/103，或是之後的102/103。

在MPEP2159.01規定中，AIA修法後的102, 103並不適用March 16, 2013以前的申請案，而此申請案定義為母案，在此條件下的母案延伸的後續案都不適用AIA，包括後續的RCE；甚至不適用國際申請案申請日March 16, 2013以前而根據35U.S.C.371進入美國的申請案；也不適用在March 16, 2013之後新增有新事物（new matter）的請求範圍（非CIP）(updated on Nov. 29, 2017)。

(updated on Nov. 29, 2017)
筆記MPEP2159.01，AIA法條（102, 103）不適用申請日（或優先權日）在3/16/2013的申請案，也不適用這類申請案後續RCE或PCT進入美國國家階段申請案，這類申請案適用pre-AIA法條（102, 103, first to invent）。

即便提出RCE的日期、PCT進入美國的申請案申請日是在3/16/2013後，都是適用pre-AIA。

[法條]

MPEP 2159.01    APPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE MARCH 16, 2013

The changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application filed before March 16, 2013. Thus, any application filed before March 16, 2013, is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (i.e., the application is a pre-AIA first to invent application). Note that neither the filing of a request for continued examination, nor entry into the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, constitutes the filing of a new application. Accordingly, even if a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 is filed on or after March 16, 2013, in an application that was filed before March 16, 2013, the application remains subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Similarly, a PCT application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before March 16, 2013, is subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, regardless of whether the application enters the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 before or after March 16, 2013. Additionally, adding claims after March 16, 2013 in an application filed before March 16, 2013 via an amendment which contains new matter does not make the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA applicable to the application because 35 U.S.C. 132(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the disclosure. If new matter is added via amendment, claims directed to the new matter will be rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 608.04.

在MPEP2159.03規定中，若有新申請案申請日在March 16, 2013當日或之後，也就是適用AIA專利法。但在以下情況下，仍要考量「先發明」的議題（102(g)：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/09/102g.html）：
(1)當請求項範圍包括的發明的有效申請日（35USC100(i)定義的effective filing date）在March 16, 2013之前；或是
(2)接續案、分割案或是部分接續案（CIP）包括March 16, 2013之前申請案的請求項範圍。
因此，如果某申請案包括（或被包括）有效申請日在March 16, 2013之前的請求項，同時包括在有效申請日為March 16, 2013當日或之後請求項，請求項將適用AIA 35U.S.C.102/103，但同時適用pre-AIA 35U.S.C.102(g)考量完成發明日的規定。

35U.S.C.100 Definitions

• (i)
  • (1) The term "effective filing date" for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent means—
    • (A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
    • (B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under section 119 , 365(a) , or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120 , 121 , or 365(c) .
  • (2) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in an application for reissue or reissued patent shall be determined by deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the patent for which reissue was sought.
• (j) The term "claimed invention" means the subject matter defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.

MPEP2159.04   Applicant Statement in Transition Applications Containing a Claimed Invention Having an Effective Filing Date on or After March 16, 2013

此段規定申請案在以上具有討論空間的過渡時期時，也就是在March 16, 2013當日或之後的申請案，但主張了在March 16, 2013之前的益處，如臨時案、正式案優先權、國外案進入美案等，但也包括了（或被包括）有效申請日在March 16, 2013當日或之後的界定在請求項的發明（claimed invention），申請人應聲明各項請求項的時間資訊，如優先權資訊、接續案與母案關係等，以協助審查委員判斷各項範圍適用pre-AIA還是post-AIA。

資料參考：
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2159.html

Ron