2009年8月28日 星期五

限制與選擇IV

限制/選擇要求下的請願書(Petition)(情況一)
Petition From Restriction/Election Requirement

當一個申請案的請求項包括有相互獨立(independent)與可區分(distinct)的複數個發明,審查委員可提出限制/選擇要求(Restriction/Election)
詳細內容可參考:
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/restrictionelection-in-us-patent.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/restrictionelection-ii.html

收到限制/選擇要求後,若有不同的意見,除了仍然要回應此限制/選擇的Office Action之外,可提出請願書(Petition),其中包括不同意審查委員區隔本案的爭點,亦可包括權利範圍的修正,但是費用就與單純回覆限制/選擇不同,而請願書提交日仍應於期限到之前,或是提出訴願通知(Notice of Appeal)之前

相關規定:
MPEP 818.03(c) - Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
其中引用37 CFR 1.144 - Petition from requirement for restriction
在收到限制要求之後,申請人除了回覆此限制要求之外,更可提出請願書,要求審查官(Director)重新審視此要求。請願書甚至可於USPTO做出最終審定,或是經選擇後的權利範圍被核准以後提交,但是不能晚於提出訴願的時間。
[原文]
After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).

情況一:「無異議」
如果申請人在回覆此限制選擇之後並未明確、具體地提出不同的意見,此類選擇將會被視為「無異議」選擇(election without traverse)。
[原文]
If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02 (Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply)

Ron

沒有留言: