歐洲單一性與檢索報告筆記

筆記
（提醒一下，查看此類規定時，Blog其實有許多舊資料，比如過去曾經規定歐洲分割案要在母案第一次OA（包括不符單一性意見）後24個月內提出，但現在已經沒有此限制，不一定某一天又有新規定，因此，查閱法條時應要看報導時間，以最新的報導與規定與"正確"的內容為準，這裡僅個人筆記）



本篇筆記關於歐洲專利局處理「不符單一性」時的檢索工作，以及，之後的申請案程序。

- 若申請案的申請專利範圍(1)並不僅有一個發明；以及(2)之間不具有「單一共同的發明概念（single general inventive concept）」時，即不符單一性規定，而此時的檢索報告一般僅針對第一組申請專利範圍的發明（invention first mentioned in the claims），此為部分檢索報告（partial search report）。

- 在特定情況下，即便不符單一性，若"這些"發明在概念上十分接近（conceptually very close），審查委員仍可能不管可能額外的工作而對全部的發明提出完整的檢索報告（complete search），並作出檢索意見。

- 若審查委員在以上情況下作出完整的檢索報告（complete search report），仍會在其檢索意見中說明申請案「缺乏單一性」，並標示出申請專利範圍中的多個發明。

- 在以上審查委員主動對所有發明提出檢索報告的情況下，歐洲檢索部門並不會要求申請人提出額外的檢索費用。

- 針對PCT進入歐洲專利局的申請案，即便PCT也同樣有不符單一性的意見，歐洲專利局並不會簡單依循PCT意見，而執行自己的判斷。

- 如上述議題，即便進入歐洲的申請案為PCT案且在PCT階段檢索時也遇到不符單一性問題時，歐洲專利局提出的補充檢索報告會"獨立地"行使檢索，也可能僅是針對第一組申請專利範圍的"部分"補充歐洲檢索報告（partial supplementary European search report）。

- 如果EP檢索報告同時提出不符單一性的意見，申請人會被"邀請"提出額外檢索費用（additional search fees）。但如果「缺乏單一性」意見是在審查程序中產生（意謂缺乏單一性意見並不一定僅在檢索時產生），就不會"邀請"申請人提出這類額外費用（換句話說，申請人要自己意識到要繳付額外檢索費用）。

- 未被檢索的發明可以提出歐洲分割申請案（主動分割，或"強制"分割）。

- EPO審查指南提出一個範例：一件申請案被認定有A, B, C, D四個發明，初步檢索報告僅針對發明A，申請人額外為發明B與C繳付檢索費用，檢索過程又認為發明B區分為B1, B2, B3三個發明，此次檢索僅針對發明B1，因此到目前為止，已經檢索的發明為A, B1, C，申請人也接獲這三個發明的專利性報告。然而，進入實質審查程序時，申請人會被要求以A, B1或C作為續審的發明，其餘發明可提出分割申請案。

- 額外檢索報告付費後，若審查程序中發現先前缺乏單一性的決定有誤，可以退費。

基本規定：

- 歐洲分割申請案不得超出原母案說明書內容。

- 歐洲分割申請案申請時的母案所指定的歐洲專利合約國，也視為是分割申請案的指定國。

- 歐洲分割申請案申請時，若母案已經撤銷的指定國，分割案也形同撤銷該國指定。

- 歐洲分割申請案可以在母案懸宕（pending，未處分前）時的任何時間提出。

- 歐洲申請案獲准歐洲專利，或是被終駁（finally refused）、撤銷或視為撤銷前，視為懸宕（pending）。

- 歐洲申請案若經終駁，在其訴願期限到期前，仍視為懸宕，此期間仍可提出歐洲分割申請案。

- 慕尼黑、海牙與柏林專利局為受理分割申請案的歐洲專利受理單位。

- 歐洲分割申請案須與母案申請時同一語言送件。

- 歐洲分割申請案申請時，應繳付檢索費用，但是，若其檢索可以基於母案的檢索結果（可能是partial或是complete），則可以部分或全部退費。

- 如果歐洲分割申請案在母案申請日兩年後提出，申請人要繳付「展期費（outstanding renewal fees）」。

- 完成申請的歐洲分割申請案，將視為獨立申請案。


[相關法條，以下摘錄自EPC Guidelines for Examination]

3.12

Lack of unity 

Also, when the claims of the application do not relate to one invention only, nor to a group of inventions linked so as to form a single general inventive concept, the search will normally be restricted to the invention or the linked group of inventions first mentioned in the claims (see B‑VII). Restriction of the search for the above reasons will be notified to the applicant in a communication accompanying the partial search report (see B‑VII, 1.2).

2.2

Complete search despite of lack of unity 

Exceptionally, in cases of lack of unity, especially "a posteriori", the examiner is able to make a complete search and prepare a search opinion (where applicable - see B‑XI, 7) for all inventions with negligible additional work and cost, in particular when the inventions are conceptually very close. In those cases, the search for the further invention(s) is completed together with that for the invention first mentioned in the claims. All results should then be included in a single search report, which raises the objection of lack of unity and identifies the different inventions. It further indicates that the Search Division did not invite the applicant to pay further search fee(s) because all claims could be searched without effort justifying such a fee. However, the search opinion (if applicable, see B‑XI, 7) still raises the issue of unity of invention (see B‑XI, 5).

2.3

Supplementary European search

When in a supplementary European search following an international (PCT) search a problem of unity of invention arises, a partial supplementary European search report is drawn up on the invention or group of inventions first mentioned in the claims serving as basis for the supplementary European search (Rule 164(1)(a)), independently of the findings of the International Searching Authority as regards unity of invention. Together with this partial search report, the applicant receives an invitation to pay further search fees for each invention other than the one first mentioned in the claims (Rule 164(1)(b)), i.e. the same procedure is followed as for the non-unity invitation for EP direct applications under Rule 64(1) (see B‑VII, 1.2).

1.2.2

Cascading non-unity 

If a lack of unity is raised at the search stage for an EP application, a search should be conducted for the invention first mentioned in the claims and the applicant is invited to pay additional search fees. Furthermore, the applicant is warned that, even if a further lack of unity "a posteriori" arises in the procedure, no further invitation to pay additional fees will be issued.

If the applicant pays any additional search fee, a search is carried out for the inventions for which those search fees have been paid.

If the search reveals that one or more of these inventions also lack unity "a posteriori", only the first invention of each of the groups of inventions is searched. No further invitation to pay further additional search fees is issued.

The search opinion is prepared, setting out the reasons for non-unity and giving an opinion on the patentability of the inventions paid for (see B‑XI, 5).

Inventions that have not been searched can be filed as divisional applications in accordance with C‑IX, 1.2.

Example 

A lack of unity objection is raised identifying 4 different inventions A, B, C, D. The first invention A is searched and the applicant is invited to pay further search fees for inventions B, C and D. The warning clause mentioned above is used.

The applicant pays two further search fees for inventions B and C. During the additional search, B is found to lack unity "a posteriori" and is divided into groups of inventions B1, B2 and B3.

In this case only B1 and C are searched. In the ESOP, full reasoning must be given as to why the claims of the application were divided into A, B, C and D and why B was further subdivided into B1, B2 and B3. In the ESOP an opinion on patentability must be given for A, B1 and C.

Examination of the application in the European phase will be based on either A, B1 or C (see C‑III, 3.1.2). The claims relating to inventions B2, B3 and D can be filed as divisional applications in accordance with C‑IX, 1.2.

Rule 64
European search report where the invention lacks unity

(1)

If the European Patent Office considers that the European patent application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention, it shall draw up a partial search report on those parts of the application which relate to the invention, or the group of inventions within the meaning of Article 82, first mentioned in the claims. It shall inform the applicant that, for the European search report to cover the other inventions, a further search fee must be paid, in respect of each invention involved, within a period of two months. The European search report shall be drawn up for the parts of the application relating to inventions in respect of which search fees have been paid.

(2)

Any fee paid under paragraph 1 shall be refunded if, during the examination of the European patent application, the applicant requests a refund and the Examining Division finds that the communication under paragraph 1 was not justified.

1.2

Voluntary and mandatory division 

The applicant may file a divisional application of his own volition (voluntary division). The most common reason, however, for filing a divisional application is to meet an objection under Art. 82 due to lack of unity of invention (mandatory division). If the examiner raises an objection due to lack of unity, the applicant is allowed a period (see C‑VI, 1) in which to limit his application to a single invention. The limitation of the parent application has to be clear and unconditional. The communication inviting the applicant to limit the application due to lack of unity should therefore include a reference to the fact that if the application is not limited within the set time limit the application may be refused.

VIII.

Divisional applications 

208

The usual reason for filing a European divisional application is that the parent application does not satisfy the requirements as to unity of invention (see point 69) and the applicant is not content with limiting it.

209

A divisional application may be filed only for subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the parent application as filed. If it complies with this provision and with the formal requirements for according a date of filing (see point 136 et seq.), it is deemed to have the same date of filing and priority date as the parent application.

All the states designated in the parent application at the time of filing of the divisional application are deemed to be designated in the latter. However, contracting states the designations of which have been withdrawn or are deemed to be withdrawn in respect of the parent application at the time of filing the divisional application cannot be designated in respect of the divisional application. The same applies to extension and validation states. 

210

A divisional application may be filed in respect of any pending earlier European patent application. An application is pending up to (but not including) the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the grant of the European patent or the date on which the application is finally refused, withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn. After an application has been refused, a divisional application may be validly filed untill the expiry of the appeal period, regardless of whether an appeal has been filed or not. 

211

Divisional applications must be filed direct with the EPO in Munich, The Hague or Berlin. They may also be filed in electronic form (see point 106). They must be filed in the language of the proceedings for the earlier (parent) application. If the parent application was not filed in the language of the proceedings, the divisional application may also be filed in the language of the parent application and a translation must be filed within two months.

212

For the fees payable in respect of a European divisional application, and also for the time limits for payment and the legal consequences of missing them, see points 119-122.

The search fee is refunded in full or in part, depending on the extent to which the search can be based on the search report for the parent (or, in the case of a sequence of applications, any preceding) application. 

If the divisional application is filed more than two years after the date of filing of the parent application, the applicant must pay outstanding renewal fees (see points 213-216) no more than four months after filing the divisional application. If these are not paid in due time, they may still be validly paid within six months of the due date, provided that the additional fee is paid within the time limit (see point 215).

After filing, each divisional application is treated as an independent patent application.

Ron