可得到幾個資訊：
(1)申請到核准（date of grant）約一年多（沒有核駁意見，但來往許多訊息）。
(2)Apple在申請過程中充分揭露申請案相關的先前技術與公開事項。
(3)Claim：
"A Single Claim
A design patent application may only include a single claim. The claim defines the design which applicant wishes to patent, in terms of the article in which it is embodied or applied. The claim must be in formal terms to "The ornamental design for (the article which embodies the design or to which it is applied) as shown." The description of the article in the claim should be consistent in terminology with the title of the invention.
When there is a properly included special description of the design in the specification, or a proper showing of modified forms of the design, or other descriptive matter has been included in the specification, the words "and described" should be added to the claim following the term "shown." The claim should then read "The ornamental design for (the article which embodies the design or to which it is applied) as shown and described.""
(4)Description：
(5)專利期限，從公報上註記的領證日（date of patent）起算15年。
(6)一些圖面：
感謝與幾位業界朋友討論到「美國設計專利」議題，才有此篇筆記。
(1)美國設計專利的期限：2015年5月13日起改為領證日（issue date/公報上的date of patent）起15年。
（範例：D596,616，專利期限從公報上註記的Jul. 21, 2009起算15年）
（範例：D687,419，此案為以上'616案後續案，但專利期限（若無terminal disclaimer）仍是從USPTO設定公報上的「領證日（issue date）」起算）
35 U.S.C. 173 Term of design patent.
Patents issued from design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fifteen years from the date of grant.
On December 18, 2012, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) was signed into law. The PLTIA among other things sets forth provisions implementing the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs ("Hague Agreement"). These provisions (Title I of the PLTIA) took effect on May 13, 2015. As a result, U.S. design patents resulting from applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 have a 15 year term from the date of grant. However, patents issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 have a 14 year term from the date of grant.
(2)美國設計專利沒有維持費。（"Maintenance fees are not required for a design or plant patent, or for statutory invention registrations."）
(3)設計專利沒有早期公開日，核准領證即公開。
(4)設計磚的延續案包括CA案、DIV案。
(5)設計案的限制選擇？
由於設計專利僅包括一項申請專利範圍，不會有「傳統的restriction」的問題，然而，一件設計申請案可能包括多個實施例，但仍需要在一個發明概念（single inventive concept）下，因此，如果當中包括超過一個專利性可區隔設計（patentably distinct design））時，審查委員仍會發出「限制要求」。（MPEP 1504.05）
"Restriction will be required under 35 U.S.C. 121 if a design patent application claims multiple designs that are patentably distinct from each other."
設計專利"不會"發出限制要求的條件："(A) the embodiments have overall appearances with basically the same design characteristics; and (B) the differences between the embodiments are insufficient to patentably distinguish one design from the other."
(6)審查委員建議，設計案的延續案不要加入與先前申請案一樣的一般圖式，應該要有新的特徵主張，否則會面對重複專利的問題。
(7)設計案的分割案為審查委員對先前申請案發出「限制要求（restriction requirement）」後的申請方案，分割案的發明人應該是先前申請案的發明人至少其中之一。 (MPEP 201.06)
(8)在美國，發明申請案的分割案可以是設計案，只要發明案的圖式夠明確而符合112(a)揭露規定，而共享同一申請日。
(9)設計案也會遭遇重複專利的問題（double patenting），概念上，即便是發明與設計之間可能也會發生，但很少見。
MPEP 804 Definition of Double Patenting
...
4. Design/Plant — Utility Situations
Double patenting issues may be raised where an applicant has filed both a utility patent application (35 U.S.C. 111) and either an application for a plant patent (35 U.S.C. 161) or an application for a design patent (35 U.S.C. 171). In general, the same double patenting principles and criteria that are applied in utility-utility situations are applied to utility-plant or utility-design situations. Double patenting rejections in utility-plant situations may be made in appropriate circumstances.
Although double patenting is rare in the context of utility versus design patents, a double patenting rejection of a pending design or utility application can be made on the basis of a previously issued utility or design patent, respectively. Carman Indus. Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 220 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The rejection is based on the public policy preventing the extension of the term of a patent. Double patenting may be found in a design-utility situation irrespective of whether the claims in the reference patent/application and the claims in the application under examination are directed to the same invention, or whether they are directed to inventions which are obvious variations of one another. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
In Carman Indus., the court held that no double patenting existed between a design and utility patent since the claims in the utility patent, drawn to the interior construction of a flow promoter, were not directed to the same invention or an obvious variation of the invention claimed in a design patent directed to the visible external surface configuration of a storage bin flow promoter. The majority opinion in this decision appears to indicate that a two-way distinctness determination is necessary in design-utility cases. 724 F.2d at 940-41, 220 USPQ at 487-88.
In Thorington, the court affirmed a double patenting rejection of claims for a fluorescent light bulb in a utility patent application in view of a previously issued design patent for the same bulb. In another case, a double patenting rejection of utility claims for a finger ring was affirmed in view of an earlier issued design patent, where the drawing in both the design patent and the utility application illustrated the same article. In re Phelan, 205 F.2d 183, 98 USPQ 156 (CCPA 1953). A double patenting rejection of a design claim for a flashlight cap and hanger ring was affirmed over an earlier issued utility patent. In re Barber, 81 F.2d 231, 28 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1936). A double patenting rejection of claims in a utility patent application directed to a balloon tire construction was affirmed over an earlier issued design patent. In re Hargraves, 53 F.2d 900, 11 USPQ 240 (CCPA 1931).
(10)如果設計專利期限從領證日起算15年，那設計案的「延續案」呢？仍是從核准公告日（issue date）起算15年（2013年12月18日後申請案）。
(11)設計案遭遇最終核駁（Final OA）時，可提出CPA（Continued prosecution application）延續審查（發明專利的CPA已經在2003年廢止）。CPA對於設計案來說，是一件延續母案申請日的新申請案，概念上與一般RCE有些不同，但實務上是差不多的。
(12)設計專利為固定期限，沒有PTA（專利期限調整）問題。
(13)若延續設計案與其先前申請案有重複專利的問題，且以Terminal Disclaimer解決，專利期限即跟隨先前申請案一起結束。
(14)申請案範例（基本上，照抄可）
Disclosure Examples
Example 1-Disclosure Of The Entire Article
I, John Doe, have invented a new design for a jewelry cabinet, as set forth in the following specification. The claimed jewelry cabinet is used to store jewelry and could sit on a bureau.
Fig. 1 is a front elevational view of a jewelry cabinet showing my new design;
Fig. 2 is a rear elevational view thereof;
Fig. 3 is a left side elevational view thereof;
Fig. 4 is a right side elevational view thereof;
Fig. 5 is a top plan view thereof; and
Fig. 6 is a bottom plan view thereof.
I claim: the ornamental design for a jewelry cabinet as shown.
其他本部落格參考：- 設計分割案的參考報導：設計專利分割案佈局討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_4.html）
- 美國設計專利再領證與分割案討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_7.html）
TIPO資料：
https://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/5121514104570.pdf
主要參考網站：
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/1504_05.html
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first/design-patent-prosecution-its-not-the-same.html
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言