美國設計專利再領證與分割案討論

美國專利一旦核准領證公告後，程序就關閉（closed），若之後想要佈局「後續案」，可以透過「再領證（re-issue）」程序，將程序打開（open），除了應實質修正原專利範圍外（包括刪、增、修圖），在再領證審查期間可以佈局後續案。

提出設計案的再領證請求後，也會有風險，如再領證案（與母案有差異）會重新進入實際審查、再領證案也可能因為設計修正不符規定被撤回、再領證案的延續案，如CIP/CA/DIV等，十分可能會與母案重複專利（近似、沒有專利性差異），只要沒有一樣（identical）就可以期末拋棄（Terminal Disclaimer）克服。以下將列舉範例。

根據MPEP 1457規定的設計專利再領證程序，其中第III節提到設計再領證申請案，所述再領證申請案可以是基於"錯誤"，如並未體現設計可專利區隔的部分時（對照先前設計），可以提出再領證案；如果提出再領證申請案時間為先前案領證公告後兩年內，可以「擴大」專利範圍。這些規定於35 U.S.C. 251。

重點：
"It should be noted that the filing of a design reissue application would not be proper if applicant did in fact include the design for a segregable part or subcombination thereof in the original design patent application, a restriction was thus made, and then applicant failed to file a divisional reissue application for a non-elected invention that was canceled in view of a restriction requirement ."

這裡提到兩種再領證設計案會遇到的樣態：segregable part、subcombination，姑且翻譯為「可分離部」與「次組合」，可分離部為設計中可以被分開的部分，次組合為多件設計中可以被獨立使用的部分（編按）。

因此，當提出再領證時，申請人會在設計中增刪一些特徵，如果是增刪設計中的「segregable part、subcombination」，這部分相對設計主體為較次要的部分，可能會被列為不被考慮/審查的部分，針對這部分列為非選擇的設計（non-elected），審查委員會對這部分發出限制要求（restriction requirement），要求提出分割申請案。

經過修正後的設計整體將被審查，設計若被認定沒有這些修正的部分仍是可核准的設計，反而會被認為違反35 U.S.C. 251再領證申請案的規定，因此再領證案修正並非基於以上所述的"錯誤"。也就是說，再領證案有"實質變更"原設計的基本立法精神，若審查後發現修改的部分並未變更原可核准的設計特徵，將發出核駁意見，甚至要求以分割案提出申請。

這裡提出若接獲違反35U.S.C.251的核駁意見，回應建議如下，也就是等於拋棄原設計，而以不同於原設計的分割再領證作為審查主體。
(A)對於以上所述未被選擇的segregable part or subcombination subject matter提出分割案。
(B)聲明已經提出分割再領證申請案。
(C)基於分割再領證案對核駁意見提出答辯，此時審查意見將針對「分割案」，而非原設計。

MPEP 1457 Design Reissue Applications and Patents
...
III.MULTIPLE DESIGN REISSUE APPLICATIONS

The design reissue application can be filed based on the "error" of failing to include a design for a patentably distinct segregable part of the design claimed in the original patent or a patentably distinct subcombination of the claimed design. A reissue design application claiming both the entire article and the patentably distinct subcombination or segregable part would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 251, if such a reissue application is filed within two years of the issuance of the design patent, because it is considered a broadening of the scope of the patent claim. Restriction will be required under 37 CFR 1.176(b) in such a reissue design application, and the added design to the segregable part or subcombination will be held to be constructively non-elected and withdrawn from consideration. See MPEP § 1450. In the Office action containing the restriction requirement, the examiner should suggest to the applicant that a divisional design reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected segregable part or subcombination subject matter may be filed. The claim to the patented design for the entire article will then be examined and, if found allowable without change from the patent, a rejection will be made under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on the fact that there is no "error" in the non-amended original patent claim. In the Office action making this rejection, applicant should be advised that a proper response to the rejection must include (A) a request to suspend action in this original reissue application pending completion of examination of a divisional reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected segregable part or subcombination subject matter, (B) the filing of the divisional reissue application, or a statement that one has already been filed (identifying it at least by application number), and (C) an argument that a complete response to the rejection has been made based upon the filing of the divisional reissue application and the request for suspension. Action in the original design reissue application will then be suspended, and the divisional will be examined.

If, after examination, the divisional design reissue application is also determined to be allowable, a requirement must be made in the divisional design reissue application to submit a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of 37 CFR 1.153 in order to permit the rejoining of the designs to the entire article (of the original application) and the segregable part or subcombination (of the divisional) under a single claim into a single design reissue application for issuance, the single application being the first design reissue application.

It should be noted that the filing of a design reissue application would not be proper if applicant did in fact include the design for a segregable part or subcombination thereof in the original design patent application, a restriction was thus made, and then applicant failed to file a divisional reissue application for a non-elected invention that was canceled in view of a restriction requirement (before issue of the original application. See In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977).

...

再領證設計範例之一：D750,849

D750,849 Bird protector


這件設計為D730589 (29/489239)的分割案，'589案為RE45586 (14/086437)的分割案，'586案為US8413614 (12/954242)的再領證案，...

D730589 (29/489239)

設計母案為發明專利：RE45586 (14/086437)

再領證設計範例之二：29/193,474

本案29/193,474為29/147267 (D459402)的再領證案，後續案包括29/193,474的分割案29/236160 (RE40625)，還有延續案29/267723 (RE40671)。

'402：


這裡討論29/193,474因為經再領證後並未與母案'402案區隔，被發出限制選擇，而擇經擴大專利範圍的部分提出分割案，也就是上述原設計被拋棄而對新增特徵提出分割申請案的案例。

此案29/193,474為D459402 的再領證案，在審查中，接獲的審查意見表示，此再領證案修正擴大專利範圍，並能與其母案'402案專利性區隔（patentably distinct）。但認為其中與母案（列為embodiment 1）區隔的embodiment 2為母案遊戲機的「次組合」，所述擴大專利範圍的部分為embodiment 2，因此發出限制要求。本案因為無法區隔其母案'402案，因此最終被拋棄。反而擴大範圍的部份對應限制要求而提出分割申請案，獲准為RE40625 (29/236160)。

29/193,474審查意見片段：

分割案RE40625 (29/236160)，顯然有新增更多虛線不主張專利範圍的部分（實質擴大專利範圍）：

Ron