「選擇要求」與「限制要求」為「限制與選擇（restriction/election）」中的兩個情況，或說「限制要求」是「選擇要求」中的情況之一，兩者常只有一個情況發生，但也會一起發生，或是前後兩次OA發生，或是幾次OA後才發生。這裡不厭其煩地簡單說明一下。
「限制要求（restriction requirement）」針對同一專利申請案申請專利範圍包括有兩組技術類別（US class）以上的「發明」，類似一般認定的「發明單一性」，但這是在實際檢索、審查之前的判斷，因此常常被認為這是很主觀的判斷，不同於日本、歐洲判斷的STF（special technical feature），STF觀念見於我國審查基準，而OA也慢慢學習這個判斷。美國這個主觀認定還是有「rejoinder（重返程序）」可以補償。
「選擇要求（election requirement）」則是基於審查委員檢索與審查的負擔而提出的要求，原因多半是因為專利說明書或申請專利範圍涵蓋「多個實施例（分為多個species）」，而每個實施例之間有差異，即便是非專利性差異，但審查委員仍會希望申請人可以選擇其中之一實施例作為他檢索與專利審查的對象。如果被區分為多個種類/實施態樣時，雖可提出反對意見，但即便僅能選擇其一種類，將來其中各項之間的「linking claim」或是「generic claim」可以核准，相關依附項都可一併獲准。
懂的人就知道，雖然restriction/election有些無理，美國專利局這種作法還是有理可循，也並非對專利權人都是壞處。
筆記
MPEP 808.01(A)討論何謂種類/實施態樣（species），當各實施態樣之間有專利性差異（patentable difference），審查委員可以要求限制選擇（requirement for restriction）；若實施態樣之間沒有專利性差異，則非歸類不同species，算同一組。也就是，有時同一species涵蓋兩個圖以上的實施例。
如果總的專利範圍可核准，可參考rejoinder程序將其相關非選擇的附屬項都納入一併核准。
[參考]MPEP § 821.04（rejoinder）
若選擇的專利可核准，相關的所有請求項都可獲准，包括未選擇的請求項可以重返（rejoinder）。可以重返的請求項應為可核准專利範圍的附屬項，或包括所有可核准的技術特徵。
MPEP 809.02(A)規範種類（species）的選擇要求，當專利審查委員要發出「限制/選擇要求」時，OA應該要包括：
- 指出總的請求項（generic claim），或沒有總的請求
- 指出專利申請案（說明書或請求項）所包括的種類（species），以及限制到的請求項
- 種類最好指出對應的圖式
如：
- 如果無法指出各種類對應的圖式，應指出每個種類間可以區隔出的機構、材料與特徵
- 如果不容易指出各種類，可以將請求項分出群組來
- 應說明各種類之間的區隔
- 要求專利申請人應選擇其一種類
- 專利申請人應包括一個選擇外，還應伴隨列出相關可讀入該種類的請求項
- 如果作出違反規定的回應，下次可能就是此階段的最終核駁
- 剩餘未在此次OA中選擇的請求項後續措施可參見MPEP 821：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/04/blog-post.html
[參考]37 CFR §1.141
(a)兩個或以上的獨立而可分割的發明理論上「不能」在一件美國專利申請案中提出。但如果在一個發明概念下的多個實施態樣（species），若有一個可以涵蓋所有實施態樣的可核准權利範圍，通常是獨立項，則可以以一件專利申請案提出與核准專利。
(b)權利範圍有三種類型，產品、製程與使用方法，若一件專利同時界定這三種類型的發明，當審查委員提出限制選擇時，僅能針對其中的製程與產品（can only be made where the process of making is distinct from the product）。而且，即便表明了產品與使用方法的區隔性，如果產品與製程並非可區隔（are not distinct），使用方法仍可以與產品與製程連結（may be joined）。
[MPEP 809.02(A)主文]
MPEP 809.02(A) ELECTION OF SPECIES REQUIRED
Where restriction between species is appropriate (see MPEP § 808.01(a)) the examiner should send a letter including only a restriction requirement or place a telephone requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged). See MPEP § 812.01 for telephone practice in restriction requirements.
- (A) Identify generic claims or indicate that no generic claims are present. See MPEP § 806.04(d) for definition of a generic claim.
- (B) Clearly identify each (or in aggravated cases at least exemplary ones) of the disclosed species, to which claims are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, the mechanical means, the particular material, or other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the speciescannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted. Provide reasons why the species are independent or distinct.
- (C) Applicant should then be required to elect a single disclosed species under 35 U.S.C. 121, and advised as to the requisites of a complete reply and his or her rights under 37 CFR 1.141.
To be complete, a reply to a requirement made according to this section should include a proper election along with a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added.
In those applications wherein a requirement for restriction is accompanied by an action on the elected claims, such action will be considered to be an action on the merits and the next action may be made final where appropriate in accordance with MPEP § 706.07(a).
For treatment of claims held to be drawn to nonelected inventions, see MPEP § 821 et seq.
MPEP 808.01(A) SPECIES
Where there is no disclosure of a relationship between species (see MPEP § 806.04(b)), they are independent inventions. A requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP § 803 and § 808.02.
Where there is a relationship disclosed between species, such disclosed relation must be discussed and reasons advanced leading to the conclusion that the disclosed relation does not prevent restriction, in order to establish the propriety of restriction.
When a requirement for restriction between either independent or distinct species is made, applicant must elect a single disclosed species even if applicant disagrees with the examiner’s restriction requirement.
Election of species should not be required between claimed species that are considered clearly unpatentable (obvious) over each other. In making a requirement for restriction in an application claiming plural species, the examiner should group together species considered clearly unpatentable over each other.
Election of species may be required prior to a search on the merits (A) in applications containing claims to a plurality of species with no generic claims, and (B) in applications containing both species claims and generic or Markush claims.
In applications where only generic claims are presented, restriction cannot be required unless the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 809.02(a). If applicant presents species claims to more than one patentably distinct species of the invention after an Office action on only generic claims, with no restriction requirement, the Office may require the applicant to elect a single species for examination.
In all applications where a generic claim is found allowable, the application should be treated as indicated in MPEP § 809 and § 821.04(a). See MPEP § 803.02 and § 809.02(a)for guidance regarding how to require restriction between species.
資料來源：www.bitlaw.com
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言