Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

6 posts / 0 new
最新回應
訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

請問諸位先進,因小弟分別於 2004/8、2004/10、2005/3分別提出美專申請,近來小弟收到一份有關於2004/8申請案之 Double Patenting 的 OA,本想提出Terminal Disclaimer 以克服OA,但小弟有好幾個疑問想請教各位先進。
首先,若小弟提出Terminal Disclaimer後,2004/8、2004/10、2005/3的申請案之專利年限該如何計算,若以2004/8為準的話,那2004/10、2005/3就鐵定縮短;倘若,以2005/3為準的話,那2004/8、2004/10就會被延長,故到底何種才是正確答案?
另外,若提出2004/8的Terminal Disclaimer,那2004/10、2005/3是否包覆在內,而不須於日後分別針對2004/10、2005/3提出Terminal Disclaimer ?
再者,根據USPTO網上所公佈有關於 35 U.S.C. 111所提出的資料中提及有關於A terminal disclaimer fee is required for each terminal disclaimer filed. To avoid paying multiple terminal disclaimer fees, a single terminal disclaimer >based on common ownership< may be filed, **>for example, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting, commonly owned double patenting references**. Similarly, a single terminal disclaimer based on a joint research agreement may be filed, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting double patenting references.< 關於前述之文章,小弟有因上述之三申請案可能要付一次或多次terminal disclaimer fee,這點讓小弟非常不解。

以上問題,望請各位先進解答小弟的困惑。感恩!

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

這三間專利申請案是什麼關係?

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

2004/8 係為結構案,2004/10 及 2005/3 係為結構與製法案,
2004/8 代表 2004年 8月申請的,審查官分別以2004/10 及 2005/3 的結構支申請專利範圍核駁2004/8 之 claim

ides13
ides13 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_804_02.htm

A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statute does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent.

terminal disclaimer是放棄專利期後期的期間,所以只能放棄後申請之專利期後期的部分,讓它的專利期與前案相同。
請留意,你放棄之後,是整篇專利的claim專利期後期都放棄掉了。

最好先確認一下,後案的專利案當中,是否有不屬於double patenting的部分,再做決定。

覺得奇怪的是,為什麼是拿後案來核駁前案?不是應該拿前案來核駁後案嗎?

ides13
ides13 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that an ODP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to link all three together. This is because a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a double patenting rejection is effective only with respect to the application in which the terminal disclaimer is filed; it is not effective to link the other two applications to each other.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/804.html

也許你應該提兩次terminal disclaimer把三個專利案連在一起。

http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/07/avoiding-double-patenting-rejection.html

另外,應留意下點

claiming each one of the conflicting double patenting references is necessary to avoid the problem of dual ownership of patents to patentably indistinct inventions in the event that the patent issuing from the application being examined ceases to be commonly owned with any one of the double patenting references that have issued or may issue as a patent. Note that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer "[i]nclude a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection."

如果該等相關的申請案,不再同時被commonly own的時候它是unenforceable的。

ides13
ides13 的照片
Double Patenting 及Terminal Disclaimer 的困惑

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/804.html

If "provisional" ODP rejections in two applications are the only rejections remaining in those applications, the examiner should withdraw the ODP rejection in the earlier filed application thereby permitting that application to issue without need of a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer must be required in the later-filed application before the ODP rejection can be withdrawn and the application permitted to issue. If both applications are filed on the same day, the examiner should determine which application claims the base invention and which application claims the improvement (added limitations). The ODP rejection in the base application can be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer, while the ODP rejection in the improvement application cannot be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer.

If "provisional" ODP rejections in two applications are the only rejections remaining in those applications, 審查員應撤回前案的ODP rejection,將它留在後案。

Log in or register to post comments