1490 Disclaimers [R-10.2019]35 U.S.C. 253 Disclaimer.
Show
37 CFR 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.*****
***** 35 U.S.C. 253(a) corresponds to the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 253, first paragraph except that the first sentence of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251 includes the phrase "without any deceptive intention" between "Whenever" and "a claim." Effective September 16, 2012, Public Law 112-29, sec. 20, 125 Stat. 284 (Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)), amended 35 U.S.C. 253 to eliminate the "without any deceptive intention" clause. 35 U.S.C. 253(b) corresponds to the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 253, second paragraph. A disclaimer is a statement filed by an owner (in part or in entirety) of a patent or of a patent to be granted (i.e., an application), in which said owner relinquishes certain legal rights to the patent. The owner of a patent or an application is the original inventor(s) who has/have not assigned away their rights or the assignee(s) of the original inventor(s), or a combination of the two. The patent or application is assigned by one assignment or by multiple assignments which establish a chain of title from the inventor(s) to the assignee(s). There are two types of disclaimers: a statutory disclaimer and a terminal disclaimer. A statutory disclaimer is a statement in which a patent owner relinquishes legal rights to one or more claims of a patent. A terminal disclaimer is a statement in which a patentee or applicant disclaims or dedicates to the public the entire term or any terminal part of the term of a patent or patent to be granted (filed in an application). Although a statutory disclaimer and a terminal disclaimer are both provided for by statute, the manner in which the two terms have been used historically distinguishes them. The phrase "statutory disclaimer" is used to denote a disclaimer of one or more claims of an issued patent whereas the phrase "terminal disclaimer" is used to denote a disclaimer of the entire term or any terminal part of the term of a patent or a patent to be granted. I. STATUTORY DISCLAIMERS Under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) and 37 CFR 1.321(a), the owner of a patent may disclaim a complete claim or claims of the patent. This may result from a lawsuit or because the patent owner has reason to believe that the claim or claims are too broad or otherwise invalid. A statutory disclaimer is not, however, a vehicle for adding or amending claims, because there is no provision for doing so in the statute (35 U.S.C. 253) or the rules (37 CFR 1.321). Thus, claims of a patent cannot be disclaimed in favor of new claims to be added to the patent or an amendment to existing claims. If the patent is involved in an interference or a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), see 37 CFR 41.127(a) and 37 CFR 42.80. As noted above, a statutory disclaimer is a statement in which a patent owner relinquishes legal rights to one or more complete claims of a patent. However, a patent owner’s disclaimer does not necessarily relinquish the rights of the public or a third party. See, e.g., Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1384, 122 USPQ2d 1301, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(discussing cases where courts "have not readily extended the effects of disclaimer to situations where others besides the patentee have an interest that relates to the relinquished claims"); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 967 n.5, 58 USPQ2d 1869, 1878 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2001)("[a] patent owner cannot avoid double patenting by disclaiming the earlier patent"). II. TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS 35 U.S.C. 253(b) and 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b) also provide for the filing by a patentee or applicant of a terminal disclaimer which disclaims or dedicates to the public the entire term or any terminal part of the term of a patent or patent to be granted. 37 CFR 1.321(c) specifically provides for the filing of a terminal disclaimer in an application or a reexamination proceeding for the purpose of overcoming a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 804.02. 37 CFR 1.321(d) specifically provides for the filing of a terminal disclaimer in an application or a reexamination proceeding for the purpose of overcoming a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on a U.S. patent or application that is not commonly owned but was disqualified pursuant to either 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) or 1.104(c)(5)(ii) as the result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.321(a) provides for a patentee to terminally disclaim a patent, but does not specifically provide for terminal disclaimers with common ownership enforcement provisions or joint research agreement enforcement provisions to obviate any nonstatutory double patenting issues. For terminal disclaimers filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) in patents not under reexamination, such terminal disclaimers typically will be reviewed by Office staff only to the extent necessary to determine whether the requirements of 37 CFR 1.321(a) are met. III. SIGNING AND SUPPORTING A DISCLAIMERA. Disclaimer Filed in a Patent or Reexamination Proceeding Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.321(a) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321(a), a statutory disclaimer or a terminal disclaimer filed in a patent or a reexamination proceeding must be signed by either (1) the patentee (the assignee, the inventor(s) if the patent is not assigned, or the assignee and the inventors who have ownership interest if the patent is assigned-in-part), or (2) an attorney or agent of record. A registered practitioner acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 is not permitted to sign the disclaimer. Where the attorney or agent of record signs the disclaimer, there is no need to comply with 37 CFR 3.73. For a terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) in a reexamination proceeding to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the terminal disclaimer must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(a)(1). B. Terminal Disclaimer in an Application 37 CFR 1.321(b) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) set forth the signature requirements for a terminal disclaimer filed in an application. For a terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) in an application to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the terminal disclaimer must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1). Note that the signature requirements for terminal disclaimers filed in a pending application differ depending on the filing date of the application (compare 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) reproduced above). If the application filing date is on or after September 16, 2012, see subsection 1, below; if the application was filed was filed before September 16, 2012, see subsection 2, below. Note that the signature on the disclaimer need not be an original signature. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(ii), the submitted disclaimer can be a copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile transmission of an original disclaimer. 1. Terminal Disclaimer in Application Filed on or After September 16, 2012 A terminal disclaimer filed in a pending application that was filed on or after September 16, 2012 must be signed by the applicant or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1). The word "applicant," in this context, refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46. Under 37 CFR 1.43, "applicant" refers to the legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor. Under 37 CFR 1.45, "applicant" refers to the inventors; if fewer than all joint inventors are applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.45, the phrase "the applicant" means the joint inventors who are applying for the patent without the omitted inventor(s). Under 37 CFR 1.46, "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under 37 CFR 1.46 and not the inventor. An assignee who is not an applicant must file a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c), including an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the application information section, and a 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement to become the 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) applicant in order to file and sign a terminal disclaimer. In order to obviate a non-statutory double patenting rejection, the entirety of the ownership must sign the terminal disclaimer disclaiming with respect to the reference on which the rejection is based, or multiple terminal disclaimers so disclaiming. Thus, if a 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) applicant who is not the owner (e.g., an inventor who assigned away the rights to the application) signs a terminal disclaimer, the terminal disclaimer will not be entered and the non-statutory double patenting rejection will not be withdrawn by the examiner. The same is true if a 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1) applicant representing less than the entirety of the ownership (see 37 CFR 1.42(c)) signs a terminal disclaimer, and a terminal disclaimer from the remainder of the ownership has not also been filed. The terminal disclaimer may also be filed by an attorney or agent of record (a registered practitioner acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 is not permitted to sign the disclaimer). Where the attorney or agent of record signs the disclaimer, there is no need to comply with 37 CFR 3.73. 2. Terminal Disclaimer in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 A terminal disclaimer filed in a pending application that was filed before September 16, 2012 must be signed by a proper party as follows:
See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321(b)(1). Where the assignee signs the terminal disclaimer, there is a requirement to comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) in order to satisfy pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321, unless an attorney or agent of record signs the terminal disclaimer. In order to comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b), the assignee’s ownership interest must be established by:
A statement of assignee interest in a terminal disclaimer that "A and B are the owners of 100% of the instant application..." is sufficient to satisfy the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.321(b)(3) requirement that a terminal disclaimer "state the present extent of applicant’s or assignee’s ownership interest in the patent to be granted." Although the quoted statement does not identify what specific percentage is owned by A and what specific percentage is owned by B, the statement does provide consent to the terminal disclaimer by the entirety of the ownership of the application (A and B own all of the invention, regardless of the individual percentages they own). The terminal disclaimer may also be filed by an attorney or agent of record (a registered practitioner acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 is not permitted to sign the disclaimer). Where the attorney or agent of record signs the disclaimer, there is no need to comply with 37 CFR 3.73. IV. PROCESSING IN CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION BRANCH The Certificates of Correction Branch is responsible for the processing of all statutory disclaimers filed under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) and 37 CFR 1.321 and all terminal disclaimers filed under 35 U.S.C. 253(b) and 37 CFR 1.321, except for terminal disclaimers filed in a pending application or reexamination proceeding. This processing involves:
V. PROCESSING OF TERMINAL DISCLAIMER IN PENDING APPLICATION OR PROCEEDINGA. eTerminal Disclaimers The Office provides for the submission of eTerminal Disclaimers (eTDs) via EFS-Web. A web-based eTD may be filled out completely online using web-screens and can include up to 50 reference applications and 50 reference patents. An eTD that meets all requirements is auto-processed, approved immediately upon submission, and directly loads into the USPTO databases which will increase accuracy and facilitate faster processing. Note that eTDs are accepted only for pending nonprovisional utility applications (including national stage and reissue) and pending design applications (including reissue). The eTD can only be used if:
Any eTD submitted after the date of payment of the issue fee, but prior to the patent grant date must include a certificate of correction requesting that the face of the patent be amended to state that the patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. Requests for terminal disclaimers for plant patent applications, reexaminations, and terminal disclaimers based on a joint research agreement must be filed by paper or a scanned image PDF submitted via EFS-Web. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents- application-process/applying-online/ eterminal-disclaimer. B. Terminal Disclaimers in Paper or Scanned Image Format Where a terminal disclaimer other than an eTD is filed in an application pending in a TC, it will be processed by a Paralegal Specialist of the Patent Legal Research Center, a paralegal of the Office of the Special Program Examiner, or an appropriate Training Quality Assurance Specialist (TQAS) of the TC having responsibility for the application. The paralegal will:
The paralegal completes a Terminal Disclaimer review decision form to notify the examiner of the nature of any informalities in the terminal disclaimer. The examiner should notify the applicant of the informalities in the next Office action, or by interview with applicant if such will expedite prosecution of the application. The approval of a terminal disclaimer by the paralegal or TQAS is not an indication that the terminal disclaimer correctly identifies the target application or patent that was the basis for any outstanding nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The examiner must determine whether the correct target application or patent is identified in the terminal disclaimer before withdrawing the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) based on the target application or patent. VI. OTHER MATTERS DIRECTED TO TERMINAL DISCLAIMERSA. Requirements of Terminal Disclaimers A proper terminal disclaimer must disclaim the terminal part of the statutory term of any patent granted on the application being examined (or the statutory term of the patent) which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term, shortened by any terminal disclaimer, of the patent (or of any patent granted on the application) to which the disclaimer is directed. Note the exculpatory language in the second paragraph of the sample terminal disclaimer forms, PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/25a, PTO/SB/26, PTO/SB/26a, PTO/AIA/25, and PTO/AIA/26, provided at the end of this Chapter. That language ("In making the above disclaimer, the owner does not disclaim...") is permissible in a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer must state that the agreement is to run with any patent granted on the application being examined and is to be binding upon the grantee, its successors, or assigns. A terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on a commonly owned reference patent or application must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.321(c). The terminal disclaimer must state that any patent granted on the application being examined will be enforceable only for and during the period that it and the reference patent or any patent granted on the reference application are commonly owned. See MPEP § 2146.02 for examples of common ownership, or lack thereof. A terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) after the expiration of the reference patent is not effective to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l v. Barr Laboratories, 592 F.3d 1340, 93 USPQ2d 1417, 1422-23 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (The Federal Circuit found a terminal disclaimer filed in a patent to overcome double patenting based upon an expired parent patent was not effective. Specifically, the court stated: "By failing to terminally disclaim a later patent prior to the expiration of an earlier related patent, a patentee enjoys an unjustified advantage—a purported time extension of the right to exclude from the date of the expiration of the earlier patent. The patentee cannot undo this unjustified timewise extension by retroactively disclaiming the term of the later patent because it has already enjoyed rights that it seeks to disclaim. Permitting such a retroactive terminal disclaimer would be inconsistent with '[t]he fundamental reason' for obviousness-type double patenting, namely, 'to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to exclude.'" (quoting In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 943-44, 214 USPQ 761, 766 (CCPA 1982) (emphasis removed))). In addition,"[a] patent owner cannot avoid double patenting by disclaiming the earlier patent." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 967 n.5, 58 USPQ2d 1869, 1878 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on a non-commonly owned patent or application disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3) must comply with 37 CFR 1.321(d), which sets forth signature, waiver rights and enforceability requirements. The terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(d) must include a provision:
Any terminal disclaimer submitted after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to patent grant date requires the filing of a certificate of correction requesting that the face of the patent be amended to state that the patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The appropriate one of form paragraphs 14.27.04.fti to 14.27.08 (reproduced below) may be used to provide applicant or patent owner with an example of acceptable terminal disclaimer language. Additionally, copies of forms PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/25a, PTO/SB/26, PTO/SB/26a, PTO/AIA/25, and PTO/AIA/26 (provided at the end of this Chapter) may be attached to the Office action to provide sample terminal disclaimers. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 253(b), "any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public... any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted." Accordingly, the disclaimer must be of a terminal portion of the term of the entire patent to be granted. A disclaimer of a terminal portion of the term of an individual claim, or individual claims will not be accepted. A disclaimer of the term of individual claims would not be appropriate because the claims of a pending application or proceeding are subject to cancellation, amendment, or renumbering. It is further noted that the statute does not provide for conditional disclaimers (whether they are terminal disclaimers or statutory disclaimers). Accordingly, a proposed disclaimer that is made contingent on the allowance of certain claims or the granting of a petition, is improper and cannot be accepted. The disclaimer should identify the disclaimant and their interest in the application and should specify the date when the disclaimer is to become effective. B. Effect of Terminal Disclaimers in Continuing Applications, Reexamination Proceedings, and Reissues A terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is effective only with respect to the application or patent identified in the disclaimer unless by its terms it extends to continuing applications (in which case, applicant must file a copy of the disclaimer in the continuing application, to obviate any nonstatutory double patenting rejection to which the disclaimer is directed). See President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea, No. 1:12-CV-1034, 2013 WL 2152635 (E.D.Va. May 15, 2013). For example, a terminal disclaimer filed in a parent application normally has no effect on a continuing application claiming filing date benefits of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120. A terminal disclaimer filed in a parent application to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection does, however, carry over to a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (effective July 14, 2003, CPAs are only available in design applications). The terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over because the CPA retains the same application number as the parent application, i.e., the application number to which the previously filed terminal disclaimer is directed. If applicant does not want the terminal disclaimer to carry over to the CPA, applicant must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182, along with the required petition fee, requesting the terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application not be carried over to the CPA; see below "Withdrawing a Terminal Disclaimer" (paragraph "A. Before Issuance of Patent"). If applicant files a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of an application under 37 CFR 1.114 (which can be filed on or after May 29, 2000 for an application filed on or after June 8, 1995), any terminal disclaimer present will continue to operate, because a new application has not been filed, but rather prosecution has been continued in the existing application. A petition under 37 CFR 1.182, along with the required petition fee, may be filed, if withdrawal of the terminal disclaimer is to be requested. Reexamination proceedings: A reexamination is a proceeding in the issued patent. Therefore, if a terminal disclaimer was filed during prosecution of the application which resulted in the patent under reexamination, the terminal disclaimer will continue to operate. Reissue applications: Where a terminal disclaimer was filed and approved in an original application, a copy of that terminal disclaimer is not required to be filed by applicant in the reissue application. An internal review form will be filled out to indicate that a terminal disclaimer has been filed for the patent (and will be effective for the patent as it will be reissued). The internal review form will be added to the reissue application file prior to allowance. A copy of the terminal disclaimer will not be placed into the reissue application file history and the front page of the reissue patent, when issued, will not indicate that the patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer (except if a different terminal disclaimer is filed in the reissue application). However, as stated above, the terminal disclaimer will be effective for the reissue patent. C. Terminal Disclaimer Identifies the Wrong Reference Application or Patent In some instances a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection will identify the wrong reference application or patent (i.e., an application or patent which is not the basis for the double patenting rejection). In these instances, a replacement terminal disclaimer identifying the correct reference application or patent would be required by the examiner. Once a correct replacement terminal disclaimer is received, the next Office action should make it clear that "the second terminal disclaimer replaces the first terminal disclaimer, and the first terminal disclaimer is thus void." A second terminal disclaimer fee should not be assessed/charged, because the first fee is applied to the second terminal disclaimer. D. Two or More Copending Applications An examiner may become aware of two or more copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1 for making a "provisional" rejection on the ground of double patenting in such situations. A "provisional" double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below. If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) is proper, the provisional NSDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NSDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, 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 require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations (e.g., when all three applications have the same effective U.S. filing date). See subsections 1 and 2 below. 1. Effective U.S. Filing Date Where there are two or more applications with conflicting (i.e., patentably indistinct) claims, it may be necessary to determine which application has the earliest effective U.S. filing date, i.e., is the "earliest-filed application." The effective U.S. filing date of an application is the earliest of:
Benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) are not taken into account when determining the term of an issued patent (see 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and (a)(3)), and therefore, are not taken into account in determining which application is the earliest-filed application. 2. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection is the Only Rejection Remaining in an Application(a) Application Has Earliest Effective U.S. Filing Date If a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date (taking into account any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) with respect to the conflicting claims) compared to the reference application(s), the examiner should withdraw the rejection in the application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent, thereby converting the "provisional" nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the other application(s) into a nonstatutory double patenting rejection when the application with the earliest U.S. effective filing date issues as a patent. (b) Applications Have the Same Effective U.S. Filing Date If both applications are actually filed on the same day, or are entitled to the same earliest effective filing date taking into account any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) with respect to the conflicting claims (see subsection 1. Effective U.S. Filing Date, above), the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until the rejection is overcome. Applicant can overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection in an application by either filing a reply showing that the claims subject to a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection are patentably distinct or filing a terminal disclaimer in the application. (c) Application Has Later Effective U.S. Filing Date If a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application, and that application has an effective U.S. filing date (taking into account any benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) with respect to the conflicting claims) that is later than the effective U.S. filing date of at least one of the reference application(s), the rejection should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejection. Provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b). In accordance with 37 CFR 1.111(b), applicant’s reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. Alternatively, a reply that includes the filing of a compliant terminal disclaimer in the later-filed application under 37 CFR 1.321 will overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection and is a sufficient reply pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111(b). After the filing of a compliant terminal disclaimer in a pending application, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection will be withdrawn in that application. (d) After Board Decision Not Reaching Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection If a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not include an opinion on a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, and includes a reversal of all other grounds as to a claim rejected based on provisional nonstatutory double patenting and the applicant has not filed a proper terminal disclaimer, the examiner must act upon the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The examiner must first determine if any reference application used in the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection has issued as a patent. If the reference application has issued, the provisional rejection should be re-issued as a nonprovisional rejection and a terminal disclaimer should be required, for example, by using form paragraphs 8.33-8.39 as appropriate. See MPEP § 804, subsection II.B. If the reference application has been abandoned or, notwithstanding the discussion in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, where the reference application has not matured to a patent and the provisional double patenting rejection is the only remaining rejection in the application, the examiner should withdraw the provisional rejection. See MPEP § 1214.06. VII. FORM PARAGRAPHS The following form paragraphs may be used to inform the applicant (or patent owner) of the status of a submitted terminal disclaimer. ¶ 14.23 Terminal Disclaimer ProperThe terminal disclaimer filed on [1] disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of [2] has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.23.01 Terminal Disclaimer Proper (Reexamination Only)The terminal disclaimer filed on [1] disclaiming the terminal portion of the patent being reexamined which would extend beyond the expiration date of [2] has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.24 Terminal Disclaimer Not Proper - Introductory ParagraphThe terminal disclaimer filed on [1] disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of [2] has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.25 Terminal Disclaimer Not Proper - Introductory Paragraph (Reexamination Only)The terminal disclaimer filed on [1] disclaiming the terminal portion of the patent being reexamined which would extend beyond the expiration date of [2] has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26 Does Not Comply With 37 CFR 1.321 "Sub-Heading" OnlyThe terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because: Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.01 Extent of Interest Not StatedThe person who has signed the disclaimer has not stated the extent of the applicant's or assignee’s interest in the application/patent. See 37 CFR 1.321(b)(3). Examiner Note:This form paragraph MUST be preceded by form paragraph 14.24 or 14.25 AND form paragraph 14.26. ¶ 14.26.02 Directed to Particular Claim(s)It is directed to a particular claim or claims, which is not acceptable, since "the disclaimer must be of a terminal portion of the term of the entire [patent or] patent to be granted." See MPEP § 1490. Examiner Note:This form paragraph MUST be preceded by form paragraph 14.24 or 14.25 AND form paragraph 14.26. ¶ 14.26.03 Not SignedThe terminal disclaimer was not signed. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.04 Application/Patent Not IdentifiedThe application/patent being disclaimed has not been identified. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.05 Application/Patent Improperly IdentifiedThe application/patent being disclaimed has been improperly identified since the number used to identify the [1] being disclaimed is incorrect. The correct number is [2]. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.06.fti Not Signed by All Owners - Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed before September 16, 2012. The terminal disclaimer was not signed by all owners and, therefore, supplemental terminal disclaimers are required from the remaining owners. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.07 No Disclaimer Fee SubmittedThe disclaimer fee of $ [1] in accordance with 37 CFR 1.20(d) has not been submitted, nor is there any authorization in the application file to charge a specified Deposit Account or credit card. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.08 Terminal Disclaimer Not Properly Signed - Application Filed On or After Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, the patentee or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.09 Failure To State Capacity To Sign - Application Filed On or After Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer has failed to state in what capacity it was signed on behalf of the juristic entity, and the person who signed it has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the juristic entity. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.26.10 Terminal Disclaimer Identifies Party Who Is Not The Applicant - Application Filed On or After Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The party identified in the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant of record. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c) must be filed and must include an application data sheet specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. To be reconsidered, the terminal disclaimer must be filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.46(c). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.01 Lacks Clause of Enforceable Only During Period of Common OwnershipIt does not include a recitation that any patent granted shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application(s) or patent(s) which formed the basis for the double patenting rejection. See 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3). Examiner Note:This form paragraph MUST be preceded by form paragraph 14.24 or 14.25 AND form paragraph 14.26. ¶ 14.27.011 Lacks 37 CFR 1.321(d) Statement for Joint Research Agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2)&(3)It does not include the waiver and enforceability provisions of 37 CFR 1.321(d). The terminal disclaimer must include a provision: (1) waiving the right to separately enforce (a) any patent granted on that application or the patent being reexamined and (b) the reference patent, or any patent granted on the reference application which formed the basis for the double patenting rejection; and (2) agreeing that any patent granted on that application or patent being reexamined shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent and the reference patent, or any patent granted on the reference application, which formed the basis for the double patenting are not separately enforced. See 37 CFR 1.321(d)(3). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.02 Fails To Disclaim Terminal Portion of Any Patent Granted On Subject ApplicationIt fails to disclaim the terminal portion of any patent granted on the subject application. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.03 Fails To Disclaim Terminal Portion of Subject PatentIt fails to disclaim the terminal portion of the subject patent. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.04.fti Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language in Patent To Be Granted -Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed before September 16, 2012. Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of any patent granted on the subject application follow:
Alternatively, Form PTO/SB/25 may be used for situation I, and Form PTO/SB/26 may be used for situation II. A copy of the forms may be found at the end of MPEP § 1490. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.04.1 Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language in Patent To Be Granted – Application Filed On or After Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of any patent granted on the subject application follow:
Alternatively, Form PTO/AIA/25 may be used for situation I, and Form PTO/AIA/26 may be used for situation II. A copy of the forms may be found at the end of MPEP § 1490. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.06 Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language in Patent (Reexamination Situation)Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of the patent being reexamined (or otherwise for an existing patent) follow:
Alternatively, Form PTO/SB/25a may be used for situation I, and Form PTO/SB/26a may be used for situation II. A copy of the forms may be found at the end of MPEP § 1490. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.07.fti Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language – Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Activities Undertaken Within the Scope of a Joint Research AgreementThis application was filed before September 16, 2012. Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of any patent granted on the subject application follow:
Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.07.1 Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language – Application Filed On or After Sept. 16, 2012, Activities Undertaken Within the Scope of a Joint Research AgreementThis application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of any patent granted on the subject application follow:
Examiner Note:
¶ 14.27.08 Examples of Acceptable Terminal Disclaimer Language in Patent (Reexamination Situation; activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement)Examples of acceptable language for making the disclaimer of the terminal portion of the patent being reexamined (or otherwise for an existing patent) follow:
Examiner Note:
¶ 14.28.fti Failure To State Capacity To Sign – Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed before September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer has failed to state in what capacity it was signed on behalf of the corporation, or other business entity or organization, and the person who signed it has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.29.fti Not Recognized as Officer of Assignee – Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, "Sub-Heading" OnlyThis application was filed before September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not an attorney or agent of record, is not recognized as an officer of the assignee, and has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP § 324. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.29.02.fti Criteria To Accept Terminal Disclaimer When Signed by a Non-Recognized Officer – Application Filed Before September 16, 2012This application was filed before September 16, 2012. It would be acceptable for a person, other than a recognized officer, to sign a terminal disclaimer, provided the record for the application includes a statement that the person is empowered to sign terminal disclaimers and/or act on behalf of the assignee. Accordingly, a new terminal disclaimer which includes the above empowerment statement will be considered to be signed by an appropriate official of the assignee. A separately filed paper referencing the previously filed terminal disclaimer and containing a proper empowerment statement would also be acceptable, if filed with another copy of the previously filed terminal disclaimer. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.30.fti No Evidence of Chain of Title to Assignee - Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012This application was filed before September 16, 2012. The assignee has not established its ownership interest in the application, in order to support the terminal disclaimer. There is no submission in the record establishing the ownership interest by either (a) providing documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original inventor(s) to the assignee and a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was, or concurrently is being, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11, or (b) specifying (by reel and frame number) where such documentary evidence is recorded in the Office (37 CFR 3.73). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.30.01 No Evidence of Chain of Title to Assignee (Reexamination Situations)The assignee has not established its ownership interest in the patent, in order to support the terminal disclaimer. There is no submission in the record establishing the ownership interest by either: (a) providing documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original inventor(s) to the assignee and a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was, or concurrently is being, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11; or (b) specifying (by reel and frame number) where such documentary evidence is recorded in the Office (37 CFR 3.73). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.30.02.fti Evidence of Chain of Title to Assignee - Submission Not Signed by Appropriate Party – Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Terminal Disclaimer Is Thus Not EnteredThis application was filed before September 16, 2012. The submission establishing the ownership interest of the assignee is informal. There is no indication of record that the party who signed the submission establishing the ownership interest is authorized to sign the submission (37 CFR 3.73). Examiner Note:
¶ 14.32 Application/Patent Which Forms Basis for Rejection Not IdentifiedThe application/patent which forms the basis for the double patenting rejection is not identified in the terminal disclaimer. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.33 37 CFR 3.73 - Establishing Right of Assignee To Take ActionThe following is a statement of 37 CFR 3.73 as applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012:
The following is a statement of pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 as applicable to applications filed before September 16, 2012:
¶ 14.34 Requirement for Statement To Record Assignment Submitted With Terminal DisclaimerThe assignment document filed on [1] is not acceptable as the documentary evidence required by 37 CFR 3.73. The submission of the documentary evidence was not accompanied by a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was, or concurrently is being, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11. See 37 CFR 3.11 and MPEP § 302. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.35 Disclaimer Fee Not Required Twice - ApplicantIt should be noted that applicant is not required to pay another disclaimer fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d) when submitting a replacement or supplemental terminal disclaimer. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.35.01 Disclaimer Fee Not Required Twice - Patent OwnerIt should be noted that patent owner is not required to pay another disclaimer fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d) when submitting a replacement or supplemental terminal disclaimer. Examiner Note:This form paragraph can be used to notify a patent owner that another disclaimer fee will not be required when a replacement or supplemental terminal disclaimer is submitted. ¶ 14.36 Suggestion That "Applicant" Request a RefundSince the required fee for the terminal disclaimer was previously paid, applicant’s payment of an additional terminal disclaimer fee is not required. Applicant may request a refund of this additional terminal disclaimer fee by submitting a written request for a refund and a copy of this Office action to: Mail Stop 16, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.36.01 Suggestion That "Patent Owner" Request a RefundSince the required fee for the terminal disclaimer was previously paid, patent owner’s payment of an additional terminal disclaimer fee is not required. Patent owner may request a refund of this additional terminal disclaimer fee by submitting a written request for a refund and a copy of this Office action to: Mail Stop 16, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Examiner Note:
¶ 14.37 Information about a Terminal Disclaimer Over a Pending ApplicationA terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a pending application (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Examiner Note:This form paragraph can be used to provide applicant information regarding the terminal disclaimer forms available on the USPTO website that may be used to overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a pending application. ¶ 14.38 Information about a Terminal Disclaimer Over a Reference PatentA terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a reference patent (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Examiner Note:This form paragraph can be used to provide applicant information regarding the terminal disclaimer forms available on the USPTO website that may be used to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a reference patent. VIII. WITHDRAWING A RECORDED TERMINAL DISCLAIMER If timely requested, a recorded terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before the application in which it is filed issues as a patent, or if a terminal disclaimer is filed in a reexamination proceeding, before the reexamination certificate issues. After a patent or reexamination certificate issues, a recorded terminal disclaimer will not be nullified. A. Before Issuance of Patent or Reexamination Certificate While the filing and recordation of an unnecessary terminal disclaimer has been characterized as an "unhappy circumstance" in In re Jentoft, 392 F.2d 633, 157 USPQ 363 (CCPA 1968), there is no statutory prohibition against nullifying or otherwise canceling the effect of a recorded terminal disclaimer which was erroneously filed before the patent issues. Likewise, a terminal disclaimer that was erroneously filed in a reexamination proceeding may be withdrawn before issuance of the reexamination certificate. Because the terminal disclaimer would not take effect until the patent is granted (or the reexamination certificate is published), and the public has not had the opportunity to rely on the terminal disclaimer, relief from this unhappy circumstance may be available by way of petition or by refiling the application (other than by refiling it as a CPA). Under appropriate circumstances, consistent with the orderly administration of the examination process, the nullification of an erroneously filed recorded terminal disclaimer may be addressed by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. Petitions seeking to reopen the question of the propriety of the double patenting rejection that prompted the filing of the terminal disclaimer have not been favorably considered. The filing of a continuing application other than a CPA, while abandoning the application in which the terminal disclaimer has been filed, will typically nullify the effect of a terminal disclaimer. The filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of an application under 37 CFR 1.114 will not nullify the effect of a terminal disclaimer, because a new application has not been filed, but rather prosecution has been continued in the existing application. B. After Issuance of Patent or Reexamination Certificate The mechanisms to correct a patent — certificate of correction (35 U.S.C. 255), reissue (35 U.S.C. 251), reexamination (35 U.S.C. 305 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314), inter partes review (35 U.S.C. 316), post grant review (35 U.S.C. 326), and covered business method review — are not available to withdraw or otherwise nullify the effect of a recorded terminal disclaimer. As a general principle, public policy does not favor the restoration to the patent owner of something that has been freely dedicated to the public, particularly where the public interest is not protected in some manner — e.g., intervening rights in the case of a reissue patent. See, e.g., Altoona Publix Theatres v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 24 USPQ 308 (1935). Although certificates of correction (35 U.S.C. 255) are available for the correction of some mistakes by applicants, this remedial provision is not available to withdraw or otherwise nullify a recorded terminal disclaimer. The scope of this remedial provision is limited in two ways — by the nature of the mistake for which correction is sought and the nature of the proposed correction. In re Arnott, 19 USPQ2d 1049 (Comm’r Pat. 1991). The nature of the mistake for which correction is sought is limited to those mistakes that are:
The nature of the proposed correction is limited to those situations where the correction does not involve changes which would:
A mistake in filing a terminal disclaimer does not fall within any of the categories of mistake for which a certificate of correction of applicant’s mistake is permissible. Although the remedial nature of reissue (35 U.S.C. 251) is well recognized, reissue is not available to correct all errors. Reissue is not available to withdraw or otherwise nullify the effect of a terminal disclaimer recorded in an issued patent. First, the reissue statute only authorizes the Director of the USPTO to reissue a patent "for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent." Because the granting of a reissue patent without the effect of a recorded terminal disclaimer would result in extending the term of the original patent, reissue under these circumstances would be contrary to the statute. In In re Yamazaki, 702 F.3d 1327, 1332, 104 USPQ2d 2024, 2028 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit stated, as to a terminal disclaimer submitted for a patent, that the statutory patent term calculation begins but does not end with 35 U.S.C. 154(a). When a patent issues subject to a terminal disclaimer, the patentee has reduced the patent’s statutory term by effectively eliminating the disclaimed portion from the original patent, by operation of 35 U.S.C. 253 (which indicates that a disclaimer of patent claims "shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent" and such applies to disclaimers of patent term). Id. Second, the principle against recapturing previously patented subject matter that has been intentionally dedicated to the public dates back to Leggett v. Avery, 101 U.S. 256 (1879). The attempt to restore that portion of the patent term that was dedicated to the public to secure the grant of the original patent would be contrary to this recapture principle. Finally, applicants have the opportunity to challenge the need for a terminal disclaimer during the prosecution of the application that issues as a patent. "Reissue is not a substitute for Patent Office appeal procedures." Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1435, 221 USPQ 289, 293 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Where applicants did not challenge the propriety of the examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejection, but filed a terminal disclaimer to avoid the rejection, the filing of the terminal disclaimer did not constitute error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251. Ex parte Anthony, 230 USPQ 467 (Bd. App. 1982), aff’d, No. 84-1357 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 1985). In In re Dinsmore, 757 F.3d 1343, 111 USPQ2d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit held that the filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a double patenting rejection over a prior patent, when the prior patent and the patent sought to be reissued were never commonly owned, was not an error within the meaning of the reissue statute. In rejecting applicants' argument, the Dinsmore court noted that applicants had not shown a mistaken belief that the two patents at issue were commonly owned, and stated that the applicants were ultimately seeking to revise a choice they made, not to remedy the result of a mistaken belief. Finally, the nullification of a recorded terminal disclaimer would not be appropriate in reexamination, inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method review proceedings. There are statutory prohibitions in 35 U.S.C. 305 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314, 35 U.S.C. 316, and 35 U.S.C. 326 against enlarging the scope of a claim during reexamination, inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method review proceedings. As noted by the Board in Anthony,supra, if a terminal disclaimer was nullified, "claims would be able to be sued upon for a longer period than would the claims of the original patent. Therefore, the vertical scope, as opposed to the horizontal scope (where the subject matter is enlarged), would be enlarged." Id. at 470. Accordingly, after issuance of a patent, a request to replace or remove a previously recorded terminal disclaimer will not be addressed on the merits. Where a terminal disclaimer was submitted to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection (made during prosecution of an application which has now issued as a patent), and one or more patent or application numbers for the patent(s) or application(s) being disclaimed in the terminal disclaimer were in error, the patent owner may file a paper explaining the error(s) and requesting that the explanation be included in the file history and its request acknowledged. A patent owner may file additional terminal disclaimer(s) disclaiming the correct patent(s) or application(s) accompanied by the fee for such disclaimer(s) for processing by the Office. See subsection IV above. IX. TERMINAL DISCLAIMER FORMS The following are forms which may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer. Forms PTO/AIA/25 and PTO/AIA/26 may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in an application where the application in which the terminal disclaimer is submitted was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Forms PTO/SB/25 and PTO/SB/26 may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in an application where the application in which the terminal disclaimer is submitted was filed before September 16, 2012. Forms PTO/SB/25a and PTO/SB/26a may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in a patent. [top] |