|
|
 |
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
804.03 ** Commonly Owned *>Inventions< of Different Inventive Entities>; Non-Commonly Owned *>Inventions< Subject to a Joint Research Agreement< [R-3] - 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
804.03 ** Commonly Owned *>Inventions< of Different Inventive Entities>; Non-Commonly Owned *>Inventions< Subject to a Joint Research Agreement< [R-3]
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
*****
**>(c)
(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if -
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.<
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross references to other applications.
*****
(c) If an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application naming different inventors are owned by the same person and contain conflicting claims, and there is no statement of record indicating that the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the later invention was made, the Office may require the assignee to state whether the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the later invention was made, and if not, indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor. Even if the claimed inventions were commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the later invention was made, the conflicting claims may be rejected under the doctrine of double patenting in view of such commonly owned or assigned applications or patents under reexamination.
37 CFR 1.130 Affidavit or declaration to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.
(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:
(1) A terminal disclaimer in accordance with § 1.321(c); and
(2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104.
(b) **>[Reserved]<
I. DOUBLE PATENTING
**>Claims< in commonly owned applications of different inventive entities >may be rejected< on the ground of double patenting. This is in accordance with existing case law and prevents an organization from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter. See In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 138 USPQ 22 (CCPA 1963) (the doctrine is well established that claims in different applications need be more than merely different in form or content and that patentable distinction must exist to entitle applicants to a second patent) and In re Christensen, 330 F.2d 652, 141 USPQ 295 (CCPA 1964).
>Claims may also be rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting in certain non-commonly owned applications that claim inventions resulting from activities undertaken with the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3). This prevents the parties to the joint research agreement from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter. See the amendment to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) by the CREATE Act (Public Law 108-453; 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)).<
Double patenting rejections can be overcome in certain circumstances by disclaiming, pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR *>1.321(c)<, the terminal portion of the term of the later patent and including in the disclaimer a provision that the patent shall be enforceable only for and during the period the patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection, thereby eliminating the problem of extending patent life. **>Double patenting rejections can also be overcome in cases subject to a joint research agreement, under certain circumstances, by disclaiming the terminal portion of the term of the later patent and including in the disclaimer the provisions of 37 CFR 1.321(d).
See MPEP § 706.02(l) - § 706.02(l)(3) for information pertaining to establishment of common ownership and the existence of a joint research agreement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103(c), as well as examination practice relating to 35 U.S.C. 103(c).<
II. IDENTIFYING COMMONLY OWNED **>AND NON-COMMONLY OWNED INVENTIONS SUBJECT TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT<
**>
A. Common Ownership by the Same Person(s) or Organization(s)
Applications or patents are "commonly owned" pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) if they were wholly or entirely owned by the same person(s), or organization(s)/business entity(ies), at the time the claimed invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) for a detailed definition of common ownership.< Two inventions of different inventive entities come within the >common ownership< provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)>(1)< when:
(A) the later invention is not anticipated by the earlier invention under 35 U.S.C. 102;
(B) the earlier invention qualifies as prior art for purposes of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 against the later invention only under *>subsections< (f) or (g) of 35 U.S.C. 102, or >under< 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications >pending on or after December 10, 2004, for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination was granted on or after December 10, 2004, and for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination was< filed on or after November 29, 1999; and
(C) the inventions were, at the time the later invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
>
B. Non-Commonly Owned Inventions Subject to a Joint Research Agreement
The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453; 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)), which amended 35 U.S.C. 103(c), was enacted on December 10, 2004. The CREATE Act permits an applicant or patentee, who is a party to a joint research agreement, to disqualify prior art that is applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and that is otherwise available as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g). Congress recognized that this amendment to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) would result in situations in which there would be double patenting between patents or applications not owned by the same party. See H.R. Rep. No. 108-425, at 5-6 (2003).
Pursuant to the CREATE Act, non-commonly owned applications or patents that are subject to a joint research agreement may be treated as if they are "commonly owned," i.e., owned or subject to assignment by the same person, for the purposes of determining obviousness if certain conditions are met. See 35 U.S.C 103(c)(2). The term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3). See also MPEP § 706.02(l)(2).
Two inventions come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2), for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, and for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination issued after December 10, 2004, when:
(A) the later invention is not anticipated by the earlier invention under 35 U.S.C. 102;
(B) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(C) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(D) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
C. Timing of Double Patenting Rejections
The examiner should make both a double patenting rejection based on common ownership and a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103 prior art when the facts support both rejections. Until applicant has established that a reference is disqualified as prior art under the joint research agreement exclusion of 35 U.S.C. 103(c), the examiner should NOT apply a double patenting rejection based on a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 706.07(a) and § 804 for information regarding when an Office action that includes a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon a reference disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) may be made final.
III. DETERMINING INVENTION PRIORITY
A determination of priority is not required when two inventions are commonly owned as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1).<
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(c), where an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application of different inventive entities are owned by the same party and contain conflicting claims, the examiner may require the assignee to state whether the claimed inventions come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) (i.e., indicate whether common ownership or an obligation of assignment to the same person existed at the time the later invention was made). If the assignee states that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) do not apply to the conflicting claimed inventions, the assignee is required to indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor. Form paragraphs 8.27, 8.28 and 8.28.01 may be used to require the applicant to identify the prior inventor under 37 CFR 1.78(c). In order to avoid abandonment, the assignee must comply with the requirement under 37 CFR 1.78(c) by naming the prior inventor unless the conflicting claims are eliminated in all but one application. If, however, the two inventions come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c), it is not necessary to determine priority of invention since the earlier invention is disqualified as prior art against the later invention and since double patenting rejections can be used to ensure that the patent terms expire together. Accordingly, a response to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.78(c) which states that the inventions of different inventive entities come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)* is complete without any further inquiry under 37 CFR 1.78(c) as to the prior inventor.
Before making the requirement to identify the prior inventor under 37 CFR 1.78(c), with its threat to hold the application abandoned if the statement is not made by the assignee, the examiner must make sure that claims are present in each application which are conflicting as defined in MPEP § 804. See In re Rekers, 203 USPQ 1034 (Comm'r Pat. 1979).
In some situations the application file *>histories< may reflect which invention is the prior invention, e.g., by reciting that one invention is an improvement of the other invention. See Margolis v. Banner, 599 F.2d 435, 202 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1979) (Court refused to uphold a holding of abandonment for failure to name the prior inventor since the record showed what was invented by the different inventive entities and who was the prior inventor.).
An application in which a requirement to name the prior inventor has been made will not be held abandoned where a timely response indicates that the other application is abandoned or will be permitted to become abandoned and will not be filed as a continuing application. Such a response will be considered sufficient since it renders the requirement to identify the prior inventor moot because the existence of conflicting claims is eliminated. Also note that the conflict between two or more pending applications can be avoided by abandoning the applications and filing a continuation-in-part application merging the conflicting inventions into a single application.
**>IV. < REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103 AND DOUBLE PATENTING
Form paragraphs 8.27, 8.28 and 8.28.01 may be used to require the applicant to name the prior inventor under 37 CFR 1.78(c).
**>¶ 8.27 Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Same Invention
Claim [1] directed to the same invention as that of claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. The issue of priority under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly 35 U.S.C. 102(f) of this single invention must be resolved.
Since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of common ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300), the assignee is required to state which entity is the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter. A terminal disclaimer has no effect in this situation since the basis for refusing more than one patent is priority of invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) and not an extension of monopoly.
Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a holding of abandonment of this application.
Examiner Note
1. In bracket 3, insert the U.S. patent number or the copending application number.
2. The claims listed in brackets 1 and 2 must be for the same invention. If one invention would have been obvious in view of the other, do not use this form paragraph; see form paragraph 8.28.
3. A provisional or actual statutory double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.31 or 8.32.
4. If the commonly assigned application or patent has an earlier U.S. filing date, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may also be made using form paragraph 7.15.01 or 7.15.02.
¶ 8.28 Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Obvious Inventions, No Evidence of Common Ownership at Time of Invention
Claim [1] directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Specifically, [4].
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph should be used when the application being examined is commonly assigned with a conflicting application or patent, but there is no indication that they were commonly assigned at the time the invention was actually made.
2. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21, 7.21.01 or 7.21.02 also should be made, as appropriate. For applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
3. In bracket 3, insert the number of the conflicting patent or application.
4. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection should also be included in the action using one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.37
5. In bracket 4, explain why the claims in the conflicting cases are not considered to be distinct.
6. Form paragraph 8.28.01 MUST follow this paragraph.
¶ 8.28.01 Advisory Information Relating to Form Paragraph 8.28
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of common ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). Commonly assigned [1], discussed above, would form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and the conflicting inventions were not commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the assignee can, under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(c), either show that the conflicting inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004.
Examiner Note
This form paragraph should follow form paragraph 8.28 and should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
<If ** the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)>(1)< apply to the commonly owned conflicting inventions of different inventive entities >or if the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) apply to non-commonly owned inventions subject to a joint research agreement< and thereby *>obviate< the obviousness rejection(s), double patenting rejection(s) should be made >(or maintained)< as appropriate. If, however, it is determined that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) do NOT apply because the inventions were not commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the later invention was made, >or because the claimed invention did NOT result from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as required by 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3),< and there is evidence of record to indicate that a patent or application is prior art against the application being examined, the examiner should make (A) *>any< appropriate double patenting rejection(s), and (B) the appropriate prior art rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 in the application being examined. See Charts I-A, I-B, II-A, >and< II-B** in MPEP § 804. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 cannot be obviated solely by filing a terminal disclaimer.
**>¶ 7.15 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) Patent or Publication, and (g)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[2] as being [3] by [4].
Examiner Note
1. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter or letters of 35 U.S.C. 102 in parentheses. If paragraph (e) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.02 or 7.15.03.
2. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
3. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.
4. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07 and form paragraphs 7.08, 7.09, and 7.14 as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.
5. If 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is also being applied, this form paragraph must be followed by either form paragraph 7.15.02 or 7.15.03.
<¶ 7.19 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) because the applicant did not invent the claimed subject matter. [2]
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph must be preceded either by paragraphs 7.07 and 7.13 or by paragraph 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that applicant was not the inventor. See MPEP § 2137.
**>¶ 7.21 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20 or form paragraph 7.103.
2. An explanation of the rejection applying the Graham v. Deere test must follow this form paragraph.
3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference's prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the reference's 3 5 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
4. If the applicability of this rejection (e.g., the availability of the prior art as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 3 5 U.S.C. 102(b)) prevents the reference from being disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c), form paragraph 7.20.01 must follow this form paragraph.
5. If this rejection is a provisional 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon a copending application that would comprise prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01 instead of this paragraph.
¶ 7.21.01 Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee or at Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the conflicting application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131. This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee or at least one common inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications pending on or after December 10, 2004 when the copending application is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application reference's prior art date, unless the copending application reference is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application reference is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application reference's prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, insert explanation of obviousness.
6. If the claimed invention is also claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using paragraph 8.33 and 8.37.
7. If evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) and the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103(c), a rejection should additionally be made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using paragraph 7.21 (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using paragraph 8.28).
<Further, if the conflicting applications have different effective U.S. filing dates, the examiner should consider making a provisional rejection in the later filed application, based on the earlier filed application, under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or 102(e)/103(a), using form paragraph 7.15.01 or 7.21.01. Similarly, if an application has a later effective U.S. filing date than a conflicting issued patent, the examiner should consider making a rejection in the application, based on the patent, under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or 102(e)/103(a), using form paragraph 7.15.02 or 7.21.02. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 cannot be obviated solely by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. However, **>for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.<
**>¶ 7.15.01 Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee or At Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131.
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention which has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor.
2. Use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12) to determine the copending application reference's prior art date, unless the copending application reference is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application reference is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01). See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, an appropriate explanation may be provided in support of the examiner's position on anticipation, if necessary.
6. If the claims of the copending application conflict with the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be given using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
7. If evidence is additionally of record to show that either invention is prior art unto the other under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection using form paragraphs 7.13 and/or 7.14 should also be made.
¶ 7.15.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Common Assignee or Inventor(s)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131.
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier filing date that discloses but does not claim the same invention. The patent or patent application publication must have either a common assignee or a common inventor.
2. 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12) must be applied if the reference is one of the following:
a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In determining the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider priority/benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), U.S. nonprovisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121, and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application's disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application, which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any priority/benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 365(a).
5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO publication) that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08 and 7.09.
6. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
7. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12 or 7.12.01.
8. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.
¶ 7.21.01 Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee or at Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the conflicting application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131. This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee or at least one common inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications pending on or after December 10, 2004 when the copending application is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application reference's prior art date, unless the copending application reference is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application reference is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application reference's prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, insert explanation of obviousness.
6. If the claimed invention is also claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using paragraph 8.33 and 8.37.
7. If evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) and the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103(c), a rejection should additionally be made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using paragraph 7.21 (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using paragraph 8.28).
¶ 7.21.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee or at Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention "by another"; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2). [4]
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention, and that only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21 should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) must be applied if the reference is one of the following:
a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C 102(e) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, insert explanation of obviousness.
<
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)