電話限制選擇要求 - MPEP 812/812.01

筆記

「Telephonic restriction」是審查委員發出正式限制選擇要求之前的動作，但實務上，較少這樣的案例（可能是美國本土外的情況），審查委員可以用電話要求「限制選擇」，但是，如果代理人沒有回覆，或是拒絕口頭回覆，就會用郵寄的。有一些情況不會用電話，如「限制選擇內容複雜」或是「審查委員自己從過去經驗判斷」，就不用電話要求，而用傳統郵寄。


MPEP 812 規範審查委員可以提出限制要求，但若沒有任何一項請求項所載發明在審查委員所屬的技術中心（technology center）中仍為可分類（classifiable），就不能發出限制要求。

MPEP 812 WHO SHOULD MAKE THE REQUIREMENT
...
An examiner should not require restriction in an application if none of the claimed inventions is classifiable in his or her Technology Center. ...

MPEP 812.01 規範電話限制選擇要求
此段規定當審查委員判斷應提出限制要求（requirement for restriction）時，審查委員應規劃出各項權利範圍的連結項與總的發明等項，這裡提到可以電話打到代理人要求口頭選擇（oral election），並包括with/without traverse，並給予3天電話回覆期限，如果代理人沒有回覆，或是拒絕口頭回覆，即以郵寄方式通知。然而，如果限制選擇要求內容複雜，就沒有電話限制要求的需要。或者，審查委員從過去經驗知道不要使用電話提出限制選擇要求。

MPEP 812.01 TELEPHONE RESTRICTION PRACTICE

If an examiner determines that a requirement for restriction should be made in an application, the examiner should formulate a draft of such restriction requirement including an indication of those claims considered to be linking and/or generic. Thereupon, the examiner should telephone the attorney or agent of record and request an oral election, with or without traverse. The examiner should arrange for a second telephone call within a reasonable time, generally within 3 working days, to provide time for the attorney or agent to consider the requirement. If the attorney or agent objects to making an oral election, or fails to respond, a restriction requirement will be mailed, and should contain reference to the unsuccessful telephone call. When an oral election is made, the examiner will then proceed to incorporate into the next Office action a formal restriction requirement including the date of the election, the attorney’s or agent’s name, and a complete record of the telephone interview, followed by a complete action on the elected invention as claimed, including linking and/or generic claims if present. However, no telephone communication need be made where the requirement for restriction is complex, the application is being prosecuted by the applicant pro se, or the examiner knows from past experience that an election will not be made by telephone.

Form paragraphs 8.23 or 8.23.01 should be used to make a telephone election of record.

my two cents:
雖「限制」與「選擇」應該是兩個定義，但是實務上是一個程序，法條雖僅提到「restriction」，但應包括「election」。

這樣看來，美國本地人、代理人，或是國外美國代理人直接代理的情況外，台灣申請人應該比較少接獲到「電話要求限制選擇」，理由一是內容可能是比較複雜，理由二是如果一直是這樣，就會一直這樣（過去經驗）。

Ron