2017年10月19日 星期四

第一次OA就是Final OA的討論

[討論會後的筆記]

早於2008年曾經討論過MPEP 706.07(B)中規範審查委員在RCE後直接在第一次OA就是Final的條件。這裡有些更新。

MPEP 706.07(B)可以區分有三個情況:(1)新申請案在第一次OA就遭遇終駁;(2)提出RCE後第一次OA就遭遇終駁;以及(3)其他。

(1)新申請案在第一次OA就遭遇終駁。
新申請案若是延續案(如CA, DIV, substitute等,條件一),以及新申請案的所有申請專利範圍與先前申請案(母案)為同一發明(the same invention,條件二),並且因為在先前申請案曾經因同一事由被核駁而能適當地作出終駁意見時(條件三),可以在申請後第一次審查意見(first OA)作出終駁意見(Final Office Action)

(2)提出RCE後第一次OA就遭遇終駁。
當專利申請案完成請求接續審查(RCE),若其中所有的申請專利範圍與先前申請案為同一發明(the same invention,條件一),以及並且因為在先前申請案曾經因同一事由被核駁而能適當地作出終駁意見時(條件二),可以在其接續的第一次審查意見(first OA)作出終駁意見(Final OA)

(3)其他。
當延續或替換案(substitute)或是請求接續審查(RCE)的專利申請案中包括先前申請案(母案)在其終駁意見(Final OA)中曾經被視為新議題(new issue),而需要進一步審查與檢索(條件一),或是新事物(new matter)產生的新議題條件二),其第一次審查意見並不適當作成終駁意見(Final OA)

另提到CIP案(可新增new matter的延續案),因為其中包括先前申請案(母案)未有揭露的技術標的,並不適合在第一次審查意見作為終駁意見。

特別的是,審查委員通常會接受在延續案或是替換申請案的第一次審查意見之前所提出面詢請求。

[MPEP]

706.07(B)    FINAL REJECTION, WHEN PROPER ON FIRST ACTION

The claims of a new application may be finally rejected in the first Office action in those situations where (A) the new application is a continuing application of, or a substitute for, an earlier application, and (B) all claims of the new application (1) are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application, and (2) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.
The claims of an application for which a request for continued examination (RCE) has been filed may be finally rejected in the action immediately subsequent to the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) where all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (A) are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114, and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.
It would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuing or substitute application or an RCE where that application contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection or closing of prosecution but was denied entry because (A) new issues were raised that required further consideration and/or search, or (B) the issue of new matter was raised.
Further, it would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where any claim includes subject matter not present in the earlier application.
A request for an interview prior to first action on a continuing or substitute application should ordinarily be granted.
A first action final rejection should be made by using Form Paragraphs 7.41 or 7.41.03, as appropriate.

[補充]
在此前一章MPEP 706.07(A)則告訴我們(應該是對審查委員說的)怎樣的情況不能作為Final,這可以學習作為讓審查委員撤銷Final的參考:

第一次OA後的第二次OA或是更多次OA不能作為Final的情況(這裡排除reexamination相關規定):

(1)  如果這次OA是因為新引用的前案對於未修正請求項作出的核駁意見,而且也不是曾經提出的IDS,即便有其他請求項已經被修改而引出此次新引證案,這次OA不得作為Final
(2)  如果此次OA提交的資訊是USPTO要求的資訊(37 CFR 1.105),審查委員不能在下次OA作出Final,除非申請人因此作出修正。
(3)  當審查委員於本次OA作出102/103核駁意見,申請人答辯,但沒有修改申請專利範圍,如果下次審查委員作出新的核駁意見,不能是Final。(不過,如果是遇到double patenting,則不受此限)
(4)  另外,我的經驗是,可能有情況是,審查委員即便引用新事證,卻仍作出Final,若不是以上情況,應該是之前的答辯並不具有說服力,但卻被審查委員擱置(moot),審查委員仍可能因此作出Final意見。
資料來源:www.bitlaw.com

2008年簡介:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/09/final-office-action-mpep-70607-b.html

Ron

沒有留言: