|
|
Author |
Topic: Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double patnt (Read 3878 times) |
|
MattB
Full Member
  
Posts: 127
|
 |
Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double patnt
« on: Sep 18th, 2007, 6:26pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Hello,
If I get a nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection,
How do I deal with this as part of an OA that includes at 102 and 103 also.
Must I mention a Terminal Disclaimer in the Response? Can I ignore it and file a TD later? Must I also file the TD with the Response?
Thank you,
|
|
 IP Logged |
Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
|
|
|
MattB
Full Member
Posts: 127
|
|
Re: Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double p
« Reply #1 on: Sep 19th, 2007, 12:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
To answer the Q,
You need to mention something like...
"Applicant is submitting herewith a terminal disclaimer Form PTO/SB/26 and payment of the appropriate fee required by law to disclaim the terminal part of any patent that may issue upon the present application to the extent such term would extend beyond the term of to U.S. Patent No. ********X and is signed by the attorney of record as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.321(b)(iv)."
You should file the TD with the response, and fee, so as to put the application immediately into the form for allowance.
Check MPEP 804.02.
All the best,
Matt B
|
|
IP Logged |
Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
|
|
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
|
Re: Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double p
« Reply #2 on: Sep 19th, 2007, 2:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 19th, 2007, 12:15pm, MattB wrote:| You should file the TD with the response, and fee, so as to put the application immediately into the form for allowance. |
|
If the client's interests aren't adversely affected, then perhaps it's okay to just file the TD even while the claims are still a moving target, but if the claims are still changing, sometimes the examiner won't insist on getting a TD if you disagree with the DP rejection, but indicate that you'll file one if needed once the claims stop changing.
However, such a response doesn't completely traverse the DP rejection and there is some risk that such a reply might be considered non-response. Of course you can also argue a traversal of the DP rejection.
You cannot simply ignore the DP rejection as that gives an unacceptably high risk of your reply being considered fatally non-responsive such that the examiner won't give you a chance to repair it.
In looking at MPEP 804.02, I see some obsolete or at least deprecated language. The warning about "insisting on a common issue date" is probably not so meaningful these days days as issue dates are irrelevant for determining patent term for utility patents.
|
|
IP Logged |
Isaac
|
|
|
MattB
Full Member
Posts: 127
|
|
Re: Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double p
« Reply #3 on: Sep 19th, 2007, 2:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote: However, such a response doesn't completely traverse the DP rejection and there is some risk that such a reply might be considered non-response. Of course you can also argue a traversal of the DP rejection.
You cannot simply ignore the DP rejection as that gives an unacceptably high risk of your reply being considered fatally non-responsive such that the examiner won't give you a chance to repair it. |
|
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for you comments. I forgot to mention that this is a continuation of an issued patent, the issued patent being cited as the double patenting problem.
Does this mean that I still have to respond to the DP, or will the TD by itself be enough to overcome the DP.
Thanks!
|
|
IP Logged |
Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
|
|
|
MattB
Full Member
Posts: 127
|
|
Re: Deal with a nonstatutory obvious type double p
« Reply #4 on: Sep 19th, 2007, 2:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
NOTE: By the way, the whole idea of TD for patents seems obsolete since we now date patent term to the earliest filing date.
I suppose for CIPs it may be damaging as TD's must be directed to the entire application and not just particular claims, but I was surprised to see it in this instance.
|
|
IP Logged |
Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print