美國專利審查時會考量一個申請案中的多個請求項界定的發明是否屬於同一類別（class）或是有多個實施例或圖式形成多個種類（species），此時將發出限制選擇要求（requirement of election and restriction），一般會認定這與多數國家考量發明單一性（考量請求項之間是否具有相同廣義發明概念，以及是否有先前技術沒有的特殊技術特徵）的方式有所不同。
但如果申請案是源自國際申請案，一般是指PCT（WIPO patent），要求的就是requirement for unity of invention（發明單一性要求），但進入美國國家階段後，又會與美國的限制選擇要求混搭，產生了一些火花。
曾經理解過案件，即便請求項之間具有共同發明，但因為申請書揭露了多個實施例形成多個種類（species）而被認為缺乏發明單一性，即發出"選擇"要求。
37 C.F.R. 1.475 規定ISA（國際檢索機構）、國際初步審查機構以及美國國家階段審查時對於發明單一性的要求。
1.475(a) 發明單一性（unity of invention）的要求就是要求申請案中申請專利範圍為基於「單一廣義發明概念（single general inventive concept）」，也就多個請求項之間需要有技術關聯性，具有相同或對應的「特殊技術特徵（special technical features，STF）」，此STF為先前技術所沒有且為每個請求項發明有貢獻的共同技術特徵。
1.475(b)
即便請求項涵蓋不同類別，但仍可視為具有發明單一性，只要（其中之一即可）：
(1) 產品以及特別用於製造此產品的流程；
(2) 產品與使用此產品的流程；
(3) 產品、特別製造此產品的流程，以及使用此產品的方法；
(4) 流程以及特別設計實現此流程的裝置或手段；
(5) 產品、特別用於製造此產品的流程、特別設計用來實現此流程的裝置或手段。
1.475(c)
如果申請案包括如(b)點指出屬於多個類別組合之一或多個的請求項，仍可能不滿足發明單一性。
1.475(d)
如果請求項包括多個產品、製造或使用的流程，第一個提到的發明作為主要發明而被審查。
1.475(e)
判斷是否申請案中有一組發明具備「單一廣義發明概念」時，並非關於發明是否以分開的請求項或是在一項請求項中有多個選擇（alternatives within a single claim）來界定。
過去曾有討論：美國專利單一性討論 - MPEP1893.03(d)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/03/mpep189303d.html）
-------------------------------------------------------
1.475 Unity of invention before the International Searching Authority, the International Preliminary Examining Authority and during the national stage.
(a) An international and a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept ("requirement of unity of invention"). Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
(b) An international or a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
(c) If an application contains claims to more or less than one of the combinations of categories of invention set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, unity of invention might not be present.
(d) If multiple products, processes of manufacture or uses are claimed, the first invention of the category first mentioned in the claims of the application and the first recited invention of each of the other categories related thereto will be considered as the main invention in the claims, see PCT Article 17(3)(a) and § 1.476(c).
(e) The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言