Upload
chelsea-axtell
View
223
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Ken Moore
Proposed New Rules in US Patent and Trademark Office, and Related
Prosecution/Negotiation/Litigation Strategies
G & B Seminar2006
2Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes: - Continuations/RCE’s – Claim Limits – Related Applications
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes:Information Disclosure Statements
III. Status of Each Set of Rules
Two Sets of Proposed Rule Changes
3Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes:
January 3, 2006 Federal Register Comments submitted by May 3,
2006 No Public Hearing was held-340
comments received (mostly negative)
Unclear when Final Rules are expected
4Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes:
A. Why needed – USPTO Issues 1,000,000 application backlog More Examiners Insufficient Too many Continuation
Applications/RCE’s Bad English Quality of Foreign
Origin Applications
5Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes:
A. Significant Changes Limits on Continuations/RCE’s Limits on Number of Claims
Examined Requirement to Identify
“Related” Applications
6Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes:
PTO-noted problems withcontinuing applications
1. Unfair to Public –Long delays in Allowance/Rejection
2. Translations inadequately revised3. Applications pending too long – used to
cover new technology
7Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes: 2005 Statistics More than 400,000 applications
filed 44,500 Continuations/C-I-P
11,800 more than one 18,500 Divisionals 52,000 RCE’s
10,000 more than one
8Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes:
Limitations on Continuing Applications/RCE’s – 37 C.F.R. §1.78 Only One Continuation/RCE Allowed as of Right Bypass Cont. of PCT - Yes Cont. of Non-provisional – Yes Claim Priority of Foreign Application(s) – No Claim Priority of Provisional - No Divisional – No CIP – Yes RCE – Yes
9Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
1. Use PCT/National Phase to postpone Filing /Examination
2. Prepare/Revise Claims before filing in U.S. to minimize §112 Rejections and “bad” First Actions
10Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
I. First Proposed Rule Changes: Divisional Application Definition
- §1.78(a)(3) – Only if… Subject to restriction/unity of
invention in original application Not elected in original
“Voluntary” divisionals not included
11Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(d)(1) Continuation/CIP – can normally
claim benefit of only a single prior application No other continuation/RCE
allowed RCE’s/continuations are
alternatives, but only one permitted
12Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(d)(1)
Only involuntary Divisionals permitted
Must result from Examiner – required restriction
No “voluntary” divisionals allowed One Continuation/RCE of each
Divisional permitted
13Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
Initially file independent claims of various scope/inventions to provoke Restriction Requirement – Increases Divisional Applications
14Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Exceptions to “One Continuation Rule” - §1.78(a)(1)(iv)
Additional RCE/Continuation allowed in (likely) rare cases
Petition if “could not have” earlier submitted Amendment Argument Evidence – e.g., commercial success
Must submit petition within 4 months of filing second or subsequent Continuation/RCE
15Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(d) – Deletion of Reference to Prior Application
If Continuation/Divisional/CIP is not permitted by rule/petition
Lose earlier filing date Prior publication can become
prior art
16Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(d)(3) – Identification of CIP Claims
If application is CIP “New” claims must be identified “Old” claims must be identified
Helps Examiners to understand “continuing” status of claims
17Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
Do not file CIP’s – file new Applications
18Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(f) – Identification of Commonly Assigned U.S. Applications Filing date (earliest effective?)
within two months At least one common inventor Assigned to same entity or
assigned to parties to a joint research agreement (§1.78(h))
19Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(f)(1) – Identification of Commonly Assigned Applications
Must cross-reference both ways Can be separate paper Can be in specification Must file within 4 months of
actual U.S. filing date
20Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(f)(2) – Rebuttable Presumption of Patentably Indistinct Claims If…
Conditions as in (f)(1), and same (earliest) filing date
Then USPTO presumes claims are overlapping/not patentably distinct
In such cases, applicant must…
21Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(f)(2) - Rebuttable Presumption of Patentably Indistinct Claims Must… Rebut presumption by explaining
how all claims are patentably distinct or
Submit terminal disclaimer and explain why more than one application is needed
22Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78(f)(3) – USPTO Can “Eliminate” Patentably Indistinct Claims If…
Patentably indistinct and No good explanation given by
applicant and accepted by USPTO
23Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.78 Becomes Applicable…
On or after effective date of final rule
24Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
All Applicants should review application portfolios and file desired continuation applications prior to the effective date (“one more” will not be permitted)
25Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Proposed Limitations on Number of Claims Examined USPTO says too many claims in
some applications USPTO wants to concentrate on
“Representative” Claims (basically, independent claims)
USPTO wants to limit “serious” examination to ten claims per application
26Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.75(b) Must designate (10) claims for
examination (exception on next slide) Dependent claims only examined if
designated Must designate dependent claims or will
not be examined (even if less than ten claims)
Designated dependent claims must depend from other designated claims
27Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.75(b)(1) – Examination Support Documents Required If… More than ten independent claims
presented, or More than ten claims designated for
examination or PTO “combines” related applications PTO has requested comments
regarding counting of Markush claims
28Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
1. File more independent claims of varying scope
2. Add dependent claims for important additional features
29Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.75(b)(2) – “Mixed” Claims to be Considered Independent
Method and Apparatus Product-by-Process
30Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.75(b)(4)
USPTO will decide if there are applications with patentably indistinct claims PTO can “combine” for
examination (if such claims are not cancelled), and thus require Examination Support Documents
31Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.261- Content of Examination Support Documents
USPTO “ultimate” Goal? Reexamination Search required List classes and subclasses
searched
32Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.261 – Content of Examination Support Document IDS must be filed
All claimed features taught by prior art must be listed
Detailed Explanation of patentability of each claim must be provided
33Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
“Never” File Examination Support Document Creates Prosecution History
Estoppel Increased Opportunity for
Charges of Inequitable Conduct
34Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.261 – Content of Examination Support Documents Required Require concise statement of
utility of each independent claim
Showing of where each claimed feature finds support in application
35Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.261(b) – Preexamination Search Must include U.S. and Foreign
patents/publications, and non-patent references
Must cover all features of every claim Foreign Search Report
Insufficient
36Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
§1.261(c) – Preexamination Search
One month (only) extension given if insufficient
Must supplement search and Support Document if claims amended
37Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Summary-USPTO Proposed Changes Will Eventually Limit Continuing Applications RCE’s Number of Claims Overlapping Applications
38Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – Information Disclosure Statements July 10, 2006 Federal Register
Notice Comments filed by September 8,
2006 – 184 received No Public Hearing was Held No Projected Date for Final Rules
Possibly Spring, 2007
39Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – Information Disclosure Statements/Duty of Disclosure
PTO-Why Changes Needed Increase Quality by Early Citation of
Prior Art Improve First Official Actions Focus Examiner on Relevant Portions
of Prior Art Minimize wasted USPTO Actions
40Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – Information Disclosure Statements
Major Changes When to Submit Material – Time
is of the Essence How to Submit – Burden of
Explanation Shifted from USPTO to Applicants
Proposed Changes In IDS Time Periods 1- 4
Application Prosecution Timelineand corresponding IDS requirements
Application Filed
First Office Action on the Merits (FAOM)
Allowance of Application
Payment ofIssue Fee
First PeriodUp to 20 citations permittedw/o any explanation req’d.• Explanations req’d for: each ref. >25 pages, or in non-English language, or for all refs when more than 20
Second Period• Explanation, and• Non-cumulative description
Third Period• Timeliness cert., and • Patentability Justification which includes: Explanation, Non-cumulative description, and either: (A) Patentability reasons for unamended claims; or (B)(1) Statement of unpatentable claims,(B)(2) Amendment, and (B)(3) Patentability reasons for amended claim(s)
Fourth Period• Timeliness cert.; • Patentability Justification which
includes: Explanation, Non-cumulative description, Statement of unpatentable claims, Amendment, and Patentability reasons for amended
claim(s); and • Petition to w/d from allowance
Patent
Time Sufficient for Consideration
42Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – Information Disclosure Statements Timing of Submissions – Different
Rules for Different Times – Four Periods First Period (37 CFR §1.97(b)) – from
Non-Provisional/Reexam/National Stage Filing, until issuance of Initial Examination
Second Period (37 CFR § 1.97(c)) – Between First Period and Notice of Allowability/Allowance – Final Rejection no longer a time limit
43Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – Information Disclosure Statements Timing of Submissions – Different
Rules for Different Times Third Time Period (37 CFR § 1.97(d)
(1)) – After Notice of Allowance/Allowability and Prior to Issue Fee Payment
Fourth Time Period (37 CFR § 1.97 (d)(2)) – After Issue Fee Payment, but only if Sufficient time for Examination to consider
44Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Proposed Rule Changes – First Time Period Requirements for Submission (37
CFR § 1.98(a)) Listing of Prior Art Cited Submit Copies of All Foreign Patents Submit Copies of cited Publications
Except U.S. Patents/Publications Submit Pending/Abandoned U.S.
ApplicationsUnless in USPTO Image File System
45Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
First Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3))
A. First Period – An “explanation” is required only when:1. Foreign Language documents
submitted2. More than twenty (20) documents
submitted3. Documents longer than (25) twenty-
five pages4. (1-3) do not apply if in foreign search
report
46Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
First Time Period - What Are the “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(vi)) The “Explanation,” which is required
for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 1, must: Specifically identify relevant features
of the cited art; and Correlate Relevant Features of the
cited art to specific claim language
47Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
Collect all Prior Art before filing in U.S.
Find and submit English counterparts If none, provide translation
regarding relevant features
48Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
II. Second Time Period
Requirements for Submission (37 CFR § 1.98(a)) Listing of Prior Art Cited Submit Copies of All Foreign Patents Submit Copies of cited Publications
Except U.S. Patents/Publications Submit Pending/Abandoned U.S.
ApplicationsUnless in USPTO Image File System
49Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Second Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3))
B. Second Period – An “explanation” and a “non-cumulative description” is required for all documents submitted, except…1. Documents cited as the result of a Foreign
Search or Examination Report, when a copy of report is provided and
2. Certification under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) is made – 37 CFR §1.98(a)(3)(viii)(B),(C) [Note: 37 CFR 1.97(e) provides additional exception for newly discovered items (within three months)]
3. Documents required by Examiner – 37 CFR § 1.105
50Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Second Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(vi))? The “Explanation” which is required
for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 2 (see previous slides), must: Specifically identify relevant features
of the cited art; and Correlate Relevant Features of the
cited art to specific claim language
51Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Second Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(v)) The “Non-cumulative description,”
which is required along with the “explanation” for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 2, must: Describe how each document being
cited is non-cumulative; Refer to specific
feature/showing/teaching
52Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
Provide U.S. attorney with reason for citation – why not cumulative
Memorialize reasons for non-citation at the time decision is made
53Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Time Period Requirements for Submission (37
CFR § 1.98(a)) Listing of Prior Art Cited Submit Copies of All Foreign Patents Submit Copies of cited Publications
Except U.S. Patents/Publications Submit Pending/Abandoned U.S.
ApplicationsUnless in USPTO Image File System
54Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(vi)) The “Explanation,” which is required
for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 3, must: Specifically identify relevant features
of the cited art; and Correlate Relevant Features of the
cited art to specific claim language
55Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(v)) The “Non-cumulative description,”
which is required along with the “explanation” for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 3, must: Describe how each document being
cited is non-cumulative; Refer to specific
feature/showing/teaching
56Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3))C. Third Period – An “explanation” and
“non-cumulative description” is required for all cited documents. Further, must:• Provide Certification of discovery of all cited
documents within three months of submission; and
• Submit “Patentability Justification” for Pending Claims or for Claims as Currently Amended over the newly cited items (37 CFR § 1.98(a)(3)(vi)(A),(B))
57Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Time Period – Additional Disclosure Requirements “Patentability Justification” must be submitted in
the Third Time Period with the “explanation” and “non-cumulative description” for each document, and must include: Reasons why the claims are patentable over newly
cited documents (37 CFR§1.98(a)(3)(vi)(A)); or Reason why an amendment causes the claims now
be patentable over newly cited documents (includes admission that claims prior to amendment are not patentable over newly cited documents. (37 CFR§1.98(a)(3)(vi)(B))
Discussion of specific claim language
58Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Fourth Time Period Requirements for Submission (37
CFR § 1.98(a)) Listing of Prior Art Cited Submit Copies of All Foreign Patents Submit Copies of cited Publications
Except U.S. Patents/Publications Submit Pending/Abandoned U.S.
ApplicationsUnless in USPTO Image File System
59Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Fourth Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” – Third Time Period(37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3))C. Fourth Period – An “explanation” and
“non-cumulative description” is required for all cited documents. Further, must:• Provide Certification of discovery of all cited
documents within three months of submission; and
• Submit “Patentability Justification” for Pending Claims or for Claims as Currently Amended over the newly cited items (37 CFR § 1.98(a)(3)(vi)(A),(B))
• File Petition to Withdraw from Issue
60Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Fourth Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(vi)) The “Explanation,” which is required
for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 4, must: Specifically identify relevant features
of the cited art; and Correlate Relevant Features of the
cited art to specific claim language
61Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Fourth Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(v)) The “Non-cumulative description,”
which is required along with the “explanation” for documents cited under the conditions identified in Time Period 4, must: Describe how each document being
cited is non-cumulative; Refer to specific
feature/showing/teaching
62Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Fourth Time Period - “Additional Disclosure Requirements” (37 CFR § 1.98 (a)(3)(vi)) “Patentability Justification” must be submitted in
the Fourth Time Period with the “explanation” and “non-cumulative description” for each document, and must include: A Petition to Withdraw Application from Issue (37
CFR §1.98(a)(3)(iii)(B); AND Admission that old claims are unpatentable and
why an amendment causes the claims to now be patentable over newly cited documents (includes admission that claims prior to amendment are not patentable over newly cited documents. (37 CFR§1.98(a)(3)(vi)(B))
Discussion of specific claim language
63Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous -Effect of Non-compliance with Rules
IDS will be placed in file without consideration by the Examiner CFR 1.98(a)(3)(vii)(C)
If bona fide attempt, additional time provided for Supplemental I.D.S.
64Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous -Safe Harbor for Good Faith Attempts to Comply with Rules 37C.F.R. 1.56(f)
- “Reasonable Inquiry” madea. Relationship of cited prior art to claims
- Good faith attempt to comply with rules- Reasonable basis for statement- Courts may not rely upon- Not applicable to uncited
information – BIG HOLE!
65Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PRACTICE TIPS
Records need to be maintained when/why Prior Art is not submitted – to reflect no “bad intent”
66Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous
Requirement to Update Information Disclosure Statement – 37 C.F.R. 1.98 (ix)
All explanations must be reviewed and updated (if necessary) when amendment made; or
Statement must be made that no update is needed
67Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous
Translations Required – 37 CFR 1.98(xi)
If within possession/custody/control of (readily available to) applicant/attorney
Translation not counted as separate document in cumulative total (in first time period)
Translation of more than 25 pages requires explanation
68Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous – Need to Avoid Citing Merely Cumulative Information – 37 C.F.P. §1.98(c)
Citation of cumulative information “must be avoided”
USPTO can decline to consider if merely cumulative
69Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Miscellaneous -Citing Prior Art from Prior Applications – 37 C.F.R. §1.98(d)
All earlier cited prior art must be provided, unless:- Benefit of Earlier Application is Relied Upon by application- Previous IDS complied with new rules
70Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Third Party Submissions - 37 C.F.R. §1.99(a),(c)
Third Party Submissions will be considered if application still pending
Must be filed by earlier of six months post-publication, or before Notice of Allowance
Non-compliant submissions not considered
71Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
PROTESTS - 37 C.F.R. §1.291
Permitted if Filed prior to (the first occurrence
of) publication of application or Notice of Allowance
Applicant consents in writing – Applicant can place time limits on consent
Protest filed prior to earlier of publication or allowance
72Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Receipt of Unsolicited Prior Art by Patent Applicant - 37 C.F.R. §1.291(b)(3)
Can submit as IDS – (b)(3)(i) Can provide written consent to
protest - (b)(3)(ii) Can submit as protest - (b)(3)(iii) Only considered if Concise
Explanation of Relevance Provided
73Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
Summary of Proposed New IDS Rules Must Submit Prior Art Early Must Explain Late-cited Prior Art After Allowance, must file
patentability justification for claims as pending or as amended, or abandon and refile as RCE/Continuation (if possible, considering other new rules)
74Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategies 1. Accused Infringer – Stronger
Positiona. Delay Negotiations
1. Until after patents issue2. Less worry about continuations3. Design around Existing patents4. Fewer claims to be concerned with
75Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategies
b. Opinions of Counsel/willful Infringement1. Fewer Claims2. Fewer Patents3. Less Time/Cost to Study
76Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategiesc. More Available Defenses –”New”
Information Disclosure Statements will create…1. Prosecution History
Estoppel/Narrowed Claim Constructions
2. New Issues of Inequitable Conducta. Incomplete Explanations
3. More Issues of possible patentee waiver of attorney – client privilege
77Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiations and Litigation Strategies d. Use of Prior Art
1. Timing – wait until after last patent issues
2. Force Patentee to file Reissue or Reexamination
3. File (Inter Partes) Reexamination with new Prior Art
78Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategies
2. Patenteea. Speed-up Negotiations –
Pressure and more Pressure1. After first patent issues
a) Want to “broaden” claim scope b) Want to receive prior art from infringers
to cite to USPTO c) Minimize time to allow design arounds
79Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategiesb. USPTO Activities
1. Do not accept narrow claims2. Appeal first application - quickly
c. Protect against Inequitable Conduct1. Involve US Attorney in Decisions
regarding Prior Arta. Enhance Attorney Client Privilege b. Make record for why Prior Art is/is not
cited – negate inference of bad intent
80Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategiesd. Try to minimize Estoppel
1. Cite Prior Art before First Action in USPTOa. Minimize need to explain
e. Pay attention to claims1. From start of first U.S.
application 2. Define “Different” Inventions
81Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
III. Negotiation and Litigation Strategiesf. Dealing with Prior Art cited by
others1. Get it from accused while applications
pending – do not delay 2. Submit to USPTO3. Try to avoid Reissue/Reexamination4. Large Volume – force third party to
file protest
82Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution Strategies for Dealing with Proposed Rules A. Continuation/RCE LimitsB. Claim LimitsC. Information Disclosure
Statements
83Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution Strategies
A. Continuation/RCE Limits1. Revise claims before filing
a. Do not “waste” first Official Action on independent claims
2. Conduct more interviewsa. Minimize Final Rejections
3. File all needed Continuations before new rules become effective
84Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution StrategiesA. Continuation/RCE Limits
4. “Invite” Restriction Requirements/Divisionalsa. Present Independent Claims to
different Inventions
5. File via PCT a. Provide more time to revise claimsb. Delay competitive “design around”
85Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution Strategies
B. Claim Limits1. Use more independent claims
a. Expands effective examinationb. Define distinct inventions
1) “Invite” Restriction Requirements/Divisional Applications
2. Save certain important features for dependent claims (may never be “truly” examined)a. Use in negotiations/litigation
86Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution StrategiesC. Information Disclosure
Statements1. Set up Systems for
Reviewing/Identifying/Providing Prior Art early in Prosecution a. Inventorsb. Company Patent Departmentc. Japanese Law Firmd. U.S. Law Firm
87Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution Strategies
C. Information Disclosure Statements2. Keep internal records when
Information not citeda. Why not citedb. Who considered
3. Identify English counterpart
88Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
IV. Prosecution StrategiesC. Information Disclosure
Statements4. Cite Foreign Official Actions
promptlya. Directly forward cited art/action
from non-Japanese associate to U.S. Attorney
b. Provide translations of relevant parts of official actions
89Copyright Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C
GOOD LUCK!