enpan's Patent & Linux practice: CA

顯示具有 CA 標籤的文章。顯示所有文章

2024年9月17日星期二

筆記cross reference的寫法

以下為美國專利US11586181（申請號：US16/698,606）的cross reference（優先權資訊），覺得超複雜，就只是看看，專利權人是＂Strong Force IoT Portfolio＂，名稱看來是NPE。（用顏色勾勒一下關聯性，寫法很分散，有點特殊。）

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims the benefit of, and is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 16/143,286, filed Sep. 26, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH FREQUENCY BAND ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIAGNOSING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 15/973,406, filed May 7, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

U.S. Ser. No. 15/973,406 is a bypass continuation-in-part of International Application Number PCT/US17/31721, filed May 9, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS, published on Nov. 16, 2017, as WO 2017/196821, which claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/333,589, filed May 9, 2016, entitled STRONG FORCE INDUSTRIAL IOT MATRIX; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/350,672, filed Jun. 15, 2016, entitled STRATEGY FOR HIGH SAMPLING RATE DIGITAL RECORDING OF MEASUREMENT WAVEFORM DATA AS PART OF AN AUTOMATED SEQUENTIAL LIST THAT STREAMS LONG-DURATION AND GAP-FREE WAVEFORM DATA TO STORAGE FOR MORE FLEXIBLE POST-PROCESSING; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/412,843, filed Oct. 26, 2016, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/427,141, filed Nov. 28, 2016, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 15/973,406 also claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,557, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SMART HEATING SYSTEMS IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/562,487, filed Sep. 24, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 claims the benefit of, and is a bypass continuation of, International Application Number PCT/US18/45036, filed Aug. 2, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

International Application Number PCT/US18/45036 claims the benefit of, and is a continuation of, U.S. Non-Provisional patent application Ser. No. 15/973,406, filed May 7, 2018, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DEFECTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS DATA COLLECTION ENVIRONMENT WITH LARGE DATA SETS.

International Application Number PCT/US18/45036 claims priority to: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,557, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SMART HEATING SYSTEMS IN AN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/540,513, filed Aug. 2, 2017, entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SMART HEATING SYSTEM THAT PRODUCES AND USES HYDROGEN FUEL; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/562,487, filed Sep. 24, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

U.S. Ser. No. 16/143,286 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/583,487, filed Nov. 8, 2017, entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS.

All of the foregoing applications are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein in their entirety.

-------------------------------------------

國際優先權主張的法條：35 U.S. Code § 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

美國國內優先權（CA, CIP）主張的法條：35 U.S. Code § 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

美國分割案是基於：35 U.S. Code § 121 - Divisional applications

-------------------------------------------

以下為美國專利US20210315581（申請號：US17/358,276）的cross reference，比以上案例更複雜，此例特別的是有將法條依據補上，更顯得複雜。

The present application is a continuation application claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/209,416, titled METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING, DISPLAY, AND CLOUD ANALYTICS, filed Dec. 4, 2018, now U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206562, which also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,183, titled CONTROL FOR A SURGICAL NETWORK OR SURGICAL NETWORK CONNECTED DEVICE THAT ADJUSTS ITS FUNCTION BASED ON A SENSED SITUATION OR USAGE, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,177, titled AUTOMATED DATA SCALING, ALIGNMENT, AND ORGANIZING BASED ON PREDEFINED PARAMETERS WITHIN A SURGICAL NETWORK BEFORE TRANSMISSION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,176, titled INDIRECT COMMAND AND CONTROL OF A FIRST OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM THROUGH THE USE OF A SECOND OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM WITHIN A STERILE FIELD WHERE THE SECOND OPERATING ROOM SYSTEM HAS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OPERATING MODES, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,185, titled POWERED STAPLING DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING FORCE, ADVANCEMENT SPEED, AND OVERALL STROKE OF CUTTING MEMBER OF THE DEVICE BASED ON SENSED PARAME1ER OF FIRING OR CLAMPING, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,184, tided POWERED SURGICAL TOOL WITH A PREDEFINED ADJUSTABLE CONTROL ALGORITHM FOR CONTROLLING AT LEAST ONE END EFFECTOR PARAMETER AND A MEANS FOR LIMITING THE ADJUSTMENT, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,182, tided SENSING THE PATIENT POSITION AND CONTACT UTILIZING THE MONO-POLAR RETURN PAD ELECTRODE TO PROVIDE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TO THE HUB, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,191, titled SURGICAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REAL TIME ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURE VARIABLES AGAINST A BASELINE HIGHLIGHTING DIFFERENCES FROM THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,195, tided ULTRASONIC ENERGY DEVICE WHICH VARIES PRESSURE APPLIED BY CLAMP ARM TO PROVIDE THRESHOLD CONTROL PRESSURE AT A CUT PROGRESSION LOCATION, filed Sep. 10, 2018, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/729,186, tided WIRELESS PAIRING OF A SURGICAL DEVICE WITH ANOTHER DEVICE WITHIN A STERILE SURGICAL FIELD BASED ON THE USAGE AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF DEVICES, filed Sep. 10, 2018, the disclosure of each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

This application is a continuation application claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/209,416, titled METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING, DISPLAY, AND CLOUD ANALYTICS, filed Dec. 4, 2018, now U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206562, which also claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,302, titled INTERACTIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS WITH ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATION CAPABILITIES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,294, titled DATA STRIPPING METHOD TO IN IERROGATE PATIENT RECORDS AND CREATE ANONYMIZED RECORD, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,300, titled SURGICAL HUB SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,309, titled SURGICAL HUB SPATIAL AWARENESS TO DETERMINE DEVICES IN OPERATING THEATER, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,310, titled COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED INTERACTIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,291, titled USE OF LASER LIGHT AND RED-GREEN-BLUE COLORATION TO DETERMINE PROPERTIES OF BACK SCATTERED LIGHT, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,296, titled ADAPTIVE CONTROL PROGRAM UPDATES FOR SURGICAL DEVICES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,333, titled CLOUD-BASED MEDICAL ANALYTICS FOR CUSTOMIZATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO A USER, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,327, titled CLOUD-BASED MEDICAL ANALYTICS FOR SECURITY AND AUTHENTICATION TRENDS AND REACTIVE MEASURES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,315, titled DATA HANDLING AND PRIORITIZATION IN A CLOUD ANALYTICS NETWORK, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,313, titled CLOUD INTERFACE FOR COUPLED SURGICAL DEVICES, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,320, titled DRIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,307, titled AUTOMATIC TOOL ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, and to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/649,323, titled SENSING ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL PLATFORMS, filed Mar. 28, 2018, the disclosure of each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

Ron

2023年4月25日星期二

CA or DIV - 筆記

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.

參考：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s201.html

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

2019年11月7日星期四

PCT進入美國的BYPASS案筆記 - MPEP 1895

MPEP 1895規範PCT案進入美國階段的特殊申請案（CA、DIV、CIP）的情況，其中涉及幾個法條，在此先註明一下：

35 U.S.C. 111(a)：申請案要件：說明書、圖示、宣誓書（說明書+圖式可取得申請日，但日後還是要補齊文件）。

35 U.S.C. 371(c)：申請案從國際組織進入美國階段時，申請人應提出：費用、國際申請案副本（含修正、檢索報告、初步審查意見）、英文翻譯、修正、宣誓書與附件英文翻譯。

35 U.S.C. 363：PCT申請案指定進入美國的效力。

35 U.S.C. 371(d)：要求進入美國國家階段期限內補齊文件，否則視為拋棄。

35 U.S.C. 365(c)：PCT進入美國的專利申請案享有PCT案申請日（或PCT前第一申請案）申請日的好處。

35 U.S.C. 120：美國申請案享有較早申請案申請日的好處。

根據MPEP 1895規定，從PCT案進入美國階段，即便沒有滿足所有申請案要件，仍可根據35 U.S.C. 363完成指定美國階段的程序，但仍需要補齊文件，符合35 U.S.C. 371(c)（必要文件）規定，若沒有在指定期限內補齊文件，美國申請案視為拋棄。

本章所提由PCT進入美國國家階段所提出的後續案（continuing application：CA、DIV、CIP）稱為「bypass」申請案（可翻為「繞道」申請案）。

如何處理這類「繞道申請案」？可參照MPEP 1895.01。

PCT案進入美國階段的「一般申請案」可主張PCT國際申請案申請日的優先權，若此美國階段申請日為CA、DIV或CIP等「繞道申請案」。亦如「一般申請案」，進入美國國家階段申請案應在PCT仍懸宕（pending，除有延遲理由，從最早申請日起不能超出30個月）時提出。

後續案延遲時，還有補救機會，可參閱37 CFR 1.55(c)規定。
---------------------------------------

那麼，為何要用bypass案進入美國？理由應該是，這只是一種選擇，想要用不同的專利範圍進入美國，可能是因為：
(1)單純地這樣決定，沒有特別理由，反正符合規定；
(2)接獲PCT檢索報告或初步審查意見（專利性、單一性有疑慮）而作出的決定，或是
(3)提供PCT初步審查意見的正是USPTO，可以根據審查報告進行佈局，或是
(4)可能在選擇進入美國國家階段前，已經接獲其他國家審查報告，因而作出選擇，如此即"選擇"在進入美國時直接改以CA、DIV、CIP等申請案進入。

---------------------------------------

[法條]
（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1895.html）

MPEP 1895 A Continuation, Divisional, or Continuation- in- Part Application of a PCT Application Designating the United States

It is possible to file a U.S. national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) during the pendency (prior to the abandonment) of an international application which designates the United States without completing the requirements for entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(c). The ability to take such action is based on provisions of the United States patent law. 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that “[a]n international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office....” 35 U.S.C. 371(d) indicates that failure to timely comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c) “shall be regarded as abandonment... by the parties thereof....” It is therefore clear that an international application which designates the United States has the effect of a pending U.S. application from the international application filing date until its abandonment as to the United States. The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that “[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120 of this title,... a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.” The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application. The filing of a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application of a PCT application designating the United States is known as a “bypass” application.

Continuation-in-part applications are generally filed in instances where applicants seek to add matter to the disclosure which is not supported by the disclosure of the international application as originally filed, as new matter may not be added to a U.S. national stage application. See 37 CFR 1.121(f).

MPEP 1895.01 Handling of and Considerations in the Handling of Continuations, Divisions, and Continuations-In-Part of PCT Applications

資料參考：
https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2018/05/:~:targetText=A%20%E2%80%9Cbypass%E2%80%9D%20application%20is%20filed,another%20domestically%20filed%20U.S.%20application.（本篇很豐富，可以讓我們思考bypass）

感謝同事陳小姐分享。

Ron

2019年7月15日星期一

CIP的母案成為先前技術的筆記

CIP的母案成為先前技術的筆記

- 有關102(a)(2)例外條款102(b)(2)的筆記 - MPEP 2154.02（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/102a2102b2-mpep-215402.html）
- 新穎性先前技術的例外 - MPEP 717
（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/07/mpep-717.html）

CIP案（Continuation in Part）是一種可以提供申請人/發明人以新增技術特徵（new matter）的方式提出申請的接續案，一般來說，就是已經提出申請的母案之後，加入新特徵的接續案。常見情境是，母案遭受核駁，又無法答辯（或其他理由）的情況，希望通過新增技術特徵而延續案件的方案。

然而，面對美國專利改革法案（AIA）後，CIP這類案型遭遇到不小的挑戰，因為CIP提出時，母案往往已經公開，而且公開"超過一年"，這樣母案成為「有效的先前技術」。

相關案例討論如：
- CIP母案可能為CIP案先前技術的討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/01/cipcip.html）
- CIP案被自己母案阻礙的案例 - Santarus v. Par Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2012)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/10/cip-santarus-v-par-pharma-fed-cir-2012.html）

如此，對「新增母案未揭露的技術特徵的CIP案的申請專利範圍」而言，CIP的存在意義為何？或是，CIP的申請策略為何？

- 回歸每個申請案都為獨立申請案的樣貌，以及Claim-By-Claim的判斷原則，「新增母案未揭露技術特徵的CIP案的申請專利範圍」的「有效申請日」為CIP案的申請日，無法溯及母案申請日。

- 35 U.S.C. 120規定後申請案如何主張與先前申請案同樣申請日時間的規定。

35 U.S.C. 120 BENEFIT OF EARLIER FILING DATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.

- 若CIP案的申請專利範圍包括母案未揭露的特徵，該項申請專利範圍的有效申請日為CIP案申請日，但同樣地，若前後申請案有箱同的至少一個發明人，後案仍符合不具新穎性排除條款。

- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)規定發明在申請日前已公開，不具新穎性，這是「比公開日」的新穎性條款，其例外條款為102(b)(1)(A)(B)：（法條中的claimed invention即指本篇討論的CIP案具有new matter的專利範圍）

根據102(b)(1)(A)，當先前揭露（母案）是CIP案的「發明人、共同發明人或其他直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人得到」的揭露內容，若其公開於CIP案的有效申請日前"一年內"，CIP的母案並不視為先前技術。

根據102(b)(1)(B)，若CIP案具有new matter的Claim的先前揭露內容（由CIP案發明人、共同發明人或他人直接或間接由CIP案發明人或共同發明人取得的揭露）早於其母案的揭露內容，可以排除母案為其先前技術。

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—

(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
- (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
- (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)規定有效申請日在他人的專利申請日之後，不具新穎性，例外條款為102(b)(2)(A)(B)(C)，但這並非CIP案的情況，因此不列入考慮。

小結：
CIP案提出的時機，應該要在母案公開日後一年內，母案就不會成為CIP案的先前技術。
CIP案提出時，如果有其早於母案（公開日）的揭露，還可排除母案為先前技術。

否則，建議CIP案可另外新案申請，當然新增技術面對自己原本母案的揭露內容時仍應具備非顯而易知性，只是，至少不要自動連結自己的母案。

補充我國專利法審查基準「優先權」篇章中對美國CIP案的討論(updated on July 16, 2019)：CIP案新增部分為「第一次申請」，可以成為其他後申請案的優先權基礎案。

一些資料可參考：
CIP案申請討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/01/cip.html）
CIP母案可能為CIP案先前技術的討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/cipcip.html）

CIP案被自己母案阻礙的案例 - Santarus v. Par Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2012)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/10/cip-santarus-v-par-pharma-fed-cir-2012.html）

Ron

2019年7月2日星期二

美國設計專利筆記（有關期限...）

從核准設計可以得到一個標準設計的申請與揭示要件，如截自目前(Jul. 2, 2019)最新的Apple設計專利：

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

2019年3月13日星期三

歐洲申請案的繫屬(pending)規定

本篇回應網友Nil Lezah在「歐洲專利分割案規定修改（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/11/blog-post_7333.html）」留下的問題：何謂「pending」？

簡單回答是：pending（「懸而未決/懸宕」）指的時間是專利申請案「處分前」的狀態。

(updated on March 14, 2019，"pending"若翻為「繫屬」，可能會有誤會，本篇pending指的是「懸而未決」的申請案狀態，若要寫"繫屬"，可能要寫成「繫屬狀態」可能好些)

嚴肅回答是：

[中華民國]
先參考我國專利審查基準第一篇第十三章「分割及改請」規定，申請專利之發明、新型或設計，實質上為 2 個以上之發明、新型或設計時，經專利專責機關通知（被通知不符單一性），或據申請人申請（主動分割），得為分割之申請。（提醒：分割申請案種類應與母案一致，若要改變（發明改為新型），要另提「改請」）

重點是，提出「分割申請案」的時間：

(1) 發明專利申請案之分割，應於原申請案再審查審定前，或於原申請案初審核准審定書送達後30 日內申請。
(2) 新型專利申請案之分割，應於原申請案處分前申請。
(3) 設計專利申請案之分割，應於原申請案再審查審定前申請。

- 在原申請案審定或處分前申請分割者，必須原申請案仍繫屬專利專責機關，始得為之。若原申請案已經撤回、拋棄或不受理時，則不得申請分割。又發明、設計專利申請案初審不予專利之審定書已送達者，須依法先申請再審查，並繳納再審查規費，使原申請案於再審查階段處於繫屬狀態，始得提出分割之申請。

- 發明分割案，如有申請實體審查之必要，應自原申請案（母案）申請日後 3年內申請實體審查。如申請分割時已逾前述 3 年期間者，得於申請分割之日後30 日內申請實體審查。

[歐洲（本篇重點）]

根據歐洲專利審查基準（guidelines for examination）Part A(形式審查) Chapter IV(特殊案)中有關分割申請案的規定，其中1.1.1節有關「pendency of the earlier application（先前申請案的繫屬狀態）」的規定，摘要如下：

提出分割申請案時，其母案應處於繫屬狀態（pending）狀態。
參考案例：G1/09以及J18/09。
若有一分割申請案（第二分割案）的母案也為一件分割申請案（第一分割案），所述「母案」是「第一分割案」（非指更早母案），因此只要第二分割案申請時第一分割案處於繫屬狀態即可。
「處於繫屬狀態的時間」為母案在歐洲專利局公報（European Patent Bulletin）上提到其專利核准的訊息（公告）之前。這時Rule 134（郵遞文件失誤的延期）並不適用。
只要母案被最終駁回、撤回（withdrawn）或是視為撤回（deemed to be withdrawn，規定可看原文），就不能提出分割申請案。
如果專利期限屆滿，而尚未繳付延展費，所述「繫屬」的狀態到應繳費期限（六個月）的最後一天（這天之後專利就被撤銷，也就不能再提出分割申請案了）。
在Rule 112(1)規定中，當專利申請案因特定原因失去權利，仍有救濟的機會，這時，專利又處於繫屬狀態。
若專利申請案被最終駁回，專利繫屬狀態的時間到可以提出上訴（notice of appeal）的期限為止。
母案在訴願/上訴期間，可以提出後續分割申請案。
如果母案被申請人主動撤回，可以在EPO接收到撤銷聲明前提出後續分割申請案。
在Rule 14(1)規定下（訴訟程序中，專利不是pending狀態），不得提出分割申請案。

Rule 14(1) Stay of proceedings
(1) If a third party provides evidence that he has instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking a decision within the meaning of Article 61, paragraph 1, the proceedings for grant shall be stayed unless the third party communicates to the European Patent Office in writing his consent to the continuation of such proceedings. Such consent shall be irrevocable. However, proceedings for grant shall not be stayed before the publication of the European patent application.

資料來源：https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/a_iv_1_1_1.htm

歐洲renewal fee規定：https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r51.html

歐洲Stay of proceedings規定：https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r14.html

其他參考：
- 歐洲分割案筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html）
- 美國與歐洲分割案的修正討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_30.html）

Ron

2019年1月4日星期五

「before」可以發生在同一天 - Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

大家都知道「時間/期限」對於專利申請等法律程序很重要，甚至可說是最重要的事情（之一），其中攸關權利與義務的規定都與時間有關，因此需要嚴格地定義與規定「時間」，但特別的是，再嚴格的規定下，仍有許多"彈性"，有些是因為人性上情理法需要兼備，有些也是因為「法規/語言」上的認知差異。

寫下本篇的動機是，同事問了一個「時間」的問題：提出「CA（Continuation Application，接續案）」的時間規定為何？簡單的回答是，「母案」還活著的時候（pending, alive）；或說「母案」處分前，也就是獲准專利與拋棄之前；那「獲准專利」到底是指「收到核准通知」、「繳交領證費」、「專利公告」，還是收到「專利證書」？

這些問題可以簡單看，卻也可能比想像中複雜，例如，完成申請還需要符合申請日的要件、接續案還要滿足112(a)撰寫與揭露規定、申請人資格、接續案的「母案」的定義、是否有主張多個優先權、"before"是指哪一天？到期日是指當日、前一天還是後一天？。先看看相關法條。

[法條]
35 U.S.C. § 120
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.

母案的發明人或共同發明人可以提出與母案有相同效果（指優先權）的接續案，但申請日要在先前申請案（母案）「patenting」、「abandonment」或「termination」之前（before），其中還有有關修正使之符合接續案資格的規定。
-------------------------------------------
MPEP 201.07 Continuation Application
...
At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the Office.
...

申請人可以在前申請案patenting, abandonment或termination之前的任何時刻提出接續案（CA），目的是提出新的一組專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application
...
1.53(b)
(b) Application filing requirements— Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.

所謂延續案（continuing application），包括CA、DIV與CIP（不含設計），取得申請日的申請案需要符合112規定的說明書，但可以不用具備申請專利範圍。
-------------------------------------------

-案例討論-

上述規定中，似乎明確，卻又有難以定義的「before」，以下案例就是討論到「35 U.S.C. § 120中規定申請CA的期限」，事實上也能及於DIV與CIP案的申請日規定。（編按，舉例來說，before Dec. 28, 2018，應該就是指Dec. 27, 2018當日以及之前的時間，這樣似乎是頗安全的解釋；另外，我可能在一些時候將CA案翻成"接續案"或是"延續案"，CA（本篇翻"延續案"，指延續先前申請案在不能增加新事物的前提下改寫專利範圍或部分說明書內容的一種"接續案（continuing application，泛指CA、CIP與DIV等）"）

Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)
案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：IMMERSION CORPORATION
被告/被上訴人：HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利：US6,429,846（平行案：PCT/US01/01486）、US7,148,875、US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105
判決日：June 21, 2016

本案涉及的議題是延續案（Continuation Application，CA）的申請日可以溯及其先前申請案（母案或更早），但條件是在「先前申請案patenting日之前（"filed before the patenting” of the earlier application"）」，看似清楚的一句話，卻仍產生了問題：CA案等接續案必須（has to）在先前申請案獲得專利（is patented）"至少一天"前提出申請？或是，在先前申請案獲得專利（patenting）之前提出申請？

那filing可以與patenting（指領證公告(issued)）同一天嗎？

"The question is whether, for that condition to be met, the continuing application has to be filed at least one day before the earlier application is patented, or whether an application may be “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application when both legal acts, filing and patenting, occur on the same day."

系爭專利'846案的申請歷史：2000/1/19申請，2002/8/6獲准專利；同時，申請人有件內容一樣PCT申請案PCT/US01/01486（申請日：2001/1/17），在2001/7/26公開（WO 01/54109）。在2002年8月之後，申請人Immersion提出一系列'846的接續案（35 U.S.C. § 120），但其中有一件爭議，就是後來獲准為US7,148,875的申請日為「2002/8/6」，即為其先前申請案'846的「領證公告日（issued date）」。另一平行的專利家族發生在WO ’109的接續案：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，說明書內容與'846家族一致。

US6,429,846「領證公告日（本案議題中的patenting date/patented date）」：2002/8/6

根據PAIR記錄，這個patenting date是USPTO登記「Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed」的日期，這天是：「領證費繳交（官方確認）後，發出領證通知後，官方記錄獲准專利權的那天」。

US7,148,875「申請日（filing date）」：2002/8/6

-訴訟把問題都掀開了-

專利權人Immersion於2012年對HTC提出侵權告訴，系爭專利為：US7,982,720、US8,031,181、US8,059,105，被告HTC主張系爭專利無效，理由是這幾件的母案WO'109內容已經揭露於'846案中，不符35 U.S.C. § 102(b)規定。

其中議題是，因為Immersion提出了兩個平行的專利家族，如果這幾件對HTC提告的系爭專利'720、'181、'105無法溯及'875與'846的先前申請日優先權時，即彼此之間無法建立35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係時，可能就無法克服其另一平行專利家族WO'109已經揭示的內容導致的缺乏新穎性核駁理由。

這時，關鍵就是「中間是否有斷鏈」，也就是，'875案是否與'846保持著35 U.S.C. § 120規範的前後接續申請案的關係？（'875案filing date ＝ '846案的patenting date）

根據地方法院的觀點，'875案不符35 U.S.C. § 120規定「filed before the patenting of '846 patent's application」，因為'875案的申請日就在'846案的領證公告日（patenting date）當天。這樣使得後案'875不能溯及前案'846案的申請日（2000/01/19），更導致本訴訟中系爭專利都面臨缺乏新穎性的無效威脅中（因為WO'109已經揭示所有特徵）。

原告Immersion提出上訴，挑戰地院對於35 U.S.C. § 120中「before」的解釋。

法院對這段的理解是，文意上並未規定後申請案申請日可以與前申請案取得專利（領證公告）的時間為「同一天」，反倒規定在領證公告「前（before）」才是！但其實法條並未規定所謂「前」或「後」是以「天（day）」為單位，這個理解就讓35 U.S.C. § 120有了模糊的解釋空間，也就讓法官解釋起來可以讓後申請案申請日與前申請案領證公告的「同一天」。（編按，也就是，在"同一天"也會發生"filed before the patenting"的情況，法條並未禁止「before」發生在同一天）

就一般理解，「before」的規定是「前一天」就要完成，特別是指CA、DIV、CIP等接續案的申請期限是在「母案處分前」，而且是「前一天或之前」。這也是被告HTC的主張。

爭議就是「before」是否可解釋為「on or before」?

一般認知是，on or before就是兩個時間的概念（二分法），on the same day，以及before the day，但法院認為"二分法"不是解決這個「時間關鍵」的方式，法律上相對嚴謹。（編按，也就是法院的視野不是如一般認定的單純，特別是涉及法定日期的問題，否則，也不會有本篇報導的需求！）

-歷史-

就美國法院而言，「歷史」的定義有決定性的影響，也就是過去的判決、判例或解釋都是要列入考慮，對於1952年開始施行的35 U.S.C. § 120，在它之前美國最高法院在案例「Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 317 (1864)」的意見中，因為針對「優先權日」的解釋建立了「same-day」的觀念。在Godfrey案例中，這位老兄先撤銷了一件先前提出申請的專利申請案，「同一天」重新提出了一個經過修改的申請案，法院對此意見是，如果申請人撤銷了自己的申請案，意欲是要同時提出新的請求（新的申請案），對於申請人而言，這兩個動作（petitions）應視為同一個「處置（transaction）」，法律上可視為連續的申請案（"both as constituting one continuous application, within the meaning of the law"），法院採取的解釋是，將較早申請案的優先權日提供給後續申請案（"giving the earlier application’s priority date to the successor application"）。

如此，產生了「同一天前後動作視為關聯而連續」的規則，也是後來法院採用的規則。也就成為1952年施行35 U.S.C. § 120的接續案的制度。

USPTO隨著也訂定37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)：
1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.

(a) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or an international application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and this section.
...

這個規定在提出取得先前申請案優勢的接續案時，並未排除「同一日/天」的情況。這裡也涉及要求後申請案要在「前後案copending」時提出申請的基本要件，續根據MPEP 211.01(b)規定，關於前後案為「copending（同時待審）」狀態的規定，這裡夠明確地提到："If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application."，就是如果先申請案公告為專利時，對於後申請案來說，如果在同一天或之前提出申請，仍符合「前後案copending」的要件。

MPEP 211.01(b) Claiming the Benefit of a Nonprovisional Application
I. COPENDENCY
When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application or with an intermediate nonprovisional application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application. If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application. See Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., 826 F.3d 1357, 1359, 119 USPQ2d 1083, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2016), holding that a child application was entitled to the benefit of a parent application where the child application was filed on the same day that a patent issued on the parent application. Patents usually will be published within four weeks of payment of the issue fee. Applicants are encouraged to file any continuing applications no later than the date the issue fee is paid, to avoid issuance of the prior application before the continuing application is filed.
...

答案已經出現：後申請案，如CA、DIV、CIP案，提出申請的最後期限是所倚賴的「先前申請案（母案）」的領證公告日（同一天/日）（same-day continuations/filing was before patenting within a single day）。

-實務-

因為「patenting date（領證公告日）」有「不容易預期」的問題，若申請人有接續案佈局的需求，USPTO應通知先前申請案（母案）的預期領證公告日（expected issuance date）。

因此，可以在先前申請案（母案）核准通知、繳交領證費、接獲領證通知時，還可提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案；甚至，到最後官方登記領證公告日的當日或之前提出CA/DIV/CIP申請案都還來得及。

my two cents:
看來簡單的「before」仍是有解釋空間，因為法律（35 U.S.C. § 120）文意上並未以「日」為單位，雖似咬文嚼字，但也是站在申請人/發明人的立場，實質是法官給了我們更寬廣的空間。

不曉得這個判決認定的「before」是否可以適用其他法規上，所以，很多規定是寫為"before or on the same day"，甚至還故意註解排除「同一天」，例如：

MPEP 609.04(b) Timing Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement
...
II. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FILED AFTER I. ABOVE BUT BEFORE MAILING OF FINAL ACTION, NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE, OR AN EX PARTE QUAYLE ACTION (37 CFR 1.97(C))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed after the period specified in subsection I. above, but prior to the date the prosecution of the application closes, i.e., before (not on the same day as the mailing date of any of the following:
...

本篇是新年2019年第一篇PO文，聖經有句話：「忘記背後，努力面前的（腓立比書3:13）」，英文：「forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead.」，這句話砥礪我們，不論過去如何，前面的（真理）才是我們要努力的。

判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1574.Opinion.6-17-2016.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/kv64zt77ctk4yx5lab5qvbuhbqblt166）

資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/patentees-includes-afterwards.html

Ron

訂閱：文章 (Atom)

2024年9月17日 星期二

2023年4月25日 星期二

2019年11月7日 星期四

2019年7月15日 星期一

2019年7月2日 星期二

2019年3月13日 星期三

2019年1月4日 星期五