筆記（本篇僅適用美國）
問題：USPTO針對某專利申請案發出限制選擇要求（restriction/election requirement），其中將申請專利範圍（基於說明書實施例）根據不同分類區分為多組發明（如發明一、發明二、發明三），要求限制選擇，經申請人選擇其中之一「發明一」繼續審查，發明一經審查獲准，在領證公告之前（before issuance），針對「發明二」提出分割申請案（divisional application），不久「發明一」即領證公告。
這時USPTO接續審查「發明二」，如果此時申請人想要針對「發明三」提出另一申請案，是提出分割申請案（DIV）？還是接續案（continuation application，CA）？
事實上CA與DIV實質是相似的，只是面對基礎案的狀態而有不同的法律與程序。
簡單的回答是，不論CA或DIV（亦可適用CIP），內容都一樣，程序如何走是根據「基礎案／母案」狀態決定，因此，上述狀態下的延續案，即便是發明三，仍應採用CA（基於仍有pending的申請案），因為其基礎案已經領證公告（程序已終止）。
如果基礎案是一般狀態的申請案，在未公告領證或是拋棄之前，都可出CA/CIP等延續案。如果基礎案是經過限制選擇要求的，在基礎案未公告領證或是拋棄之前，可針對其中未選擇的申請專利範圍提出一或多件DIV，如果並非針對其中未選擇範圍，延續案應為CA。
根據以下列舉法條，35USC121規範分割申請案，就是指根據審查意見提出的限制選擇提出DIV相關規定亦需參考規範延續案35USC120，還提到，在限制選擇要求下在基礎案領證公告前提出DIV，不能拿來對抗DIV或是相關申請案，意思是，DIV應該是要在基礎案領證公告前提出申請。
35 U.S.C. 121 DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS.
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
摘錄其中相關內容：
- A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.
- The inventorship in the divisional application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application, and the divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
- An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a “divisional” of the provisional application.
- A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a).（發明專利申請案的DIV可以是設計案!）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言