MPEP 707.07 Completeness and Clarity of Examiner’s Action
MPEP 707.07 要求審查委員審查專利時應完整和明確
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination
...
(b) Completeness of examiner’s action. The examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters, except that in appropriate circumstances, such as misjoinder of invention, fundamental defects in the application, and the like, the action of the examiner may be limited to such matters before further action is made. However, matters of form need not be raised by the examiner until a claim is found allowable.
除非有特定情況，審查委員做出的審查意見應對所有"事物(matters)"作出完整的意見，特別是要針對專利性，而非格式(form)上的問題，除非專利為可核准的狀態。因此，實務上常會見到專利有機會獲准，審查委員會用電話通知代理人，或是特定action，如Quayle action，讓申請人簡單修正一些格式上問題就會發出領證通知了。
在第(a)節，要求審查委員在第一次OA中就列出形式上的問題(informality)，申請人應逐一回應。
707.07(a) Complete Action on Formal Matters
Any form that lists informalities and any additional formal requirements which the examiner desires to make should be included in the first action. When any formal requirement is made in an examiner’s action, that action should, in all cases where it indicates allowable subject matter, call attention to 37 CFR 1.111(b) and state that a complete reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with.
第(d)節為本篇報導重點，此節規範審查委員怎麼寫OA？看來，明確地表明審查意見的立場是很重要的，不要用模糊字眼讓申請人摸不著頭緒。
1. 要完整與清楚地敘明核駁意見，核駁就寫"reject"。
2. 核駁意見一開始要指出引用法條，使用"35 U.S.C."。
3. 除非核駁意見適用一組請求項範圍，不要以共用核駁意見核駁一組請求項（要逐項審查就是了，不要以相同理由呼嚨過去）。
4. 專利局的責任是對不可專利的申請案提出"確鑿表面證據"(prima facie case，指表面上充分的證據，不含糊)，因此要明確闡述核駁背後的理由。
5. 要避免個人因素，不要記錄審查委員認為不可專利的個人意見。
6. 審查委員不應對可專利性表示懷疑，核准專利時應該是所有問題都解決了。
7. 不應表示任何不具專業判斷的意見。
8. 審查委員應在OA中指出可核准的專利範圍，以及/或建議被駁回的專利範圍修正後可以核准的意見。
MPEP 707.07(d) Language To Be Used in Rejecting Claims
Where a claim is refused for any reason relating to the merits thereof it should be "rejected" and the ground of rejection fully and clearly stated, and the word "reject" must be used. The examiner should designate the statutory basis for any ground of rejection by express reference to a section of 35 U.S.C. in the opening sentence of each ground of rejection. Claims should not be grouped together in a common rejection unless that rejection is equally applicable to all claims in the group.
The burden is on the Office to establish any prima facie case of unpatentability (see, e.g., MPEP § 2103), thus the reasoning behind any rejection must be clearly articulated. For example, if the claim is rejected as broader than the enabling disclosure, the reason for so holding should be explained; if rejected as indefinite the examiner should point out wherein the indefiniteness resides; or if rejected as incomplete, the element or elements lacking should be specified, or the applicant be otherwise advised as to what the claim requires to render it complete. (本段提示審查委員應該對各種核駁意見都明確指出問題所在)
Most of the form paragraphs for use in rejecting claims are now in MPEP Chapter 2100. See especially MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(1), 2107.02, 2117, 2139.03, 2148, 2152.07, 2157, 2158.01, 2166, 2175, and 2187 for language to be used.
Everything of a personal nature must be avoided. Whatever may be the examiner’s view as to the utter lack of patentable merit in the disclosure of the application examined, he or she should not express in the record the opinion that the application is, or appears to be, devoid of patentable subject matter. Nor should he or she express doubts as to the allowability of allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in favor of the applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed. The impression that any part of an Office action fails to reflect the professional judgment of the examiner or other employee authorizing the action should not be created by the action.
The examiner should, as a part of the first Office action on the merits, identify any claims which he or she judges, as presently recited, to be allowable and/or should suggest any way in which he or she considers that rejected claims may be amended to make them allowable.
資料參考：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言