Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
1451 Divisional Reissue Applications; Continuation Reissue Applications Where the Parent is Pending [R-2] - 1400 Correction of Patents
1451 Divisional Reissue Applications; Continuation Reissue Applications Where the Parent is Pending [R-2]
35 U.S.C. 251 Reissue of defective patents.
*****
The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
*****
37 CFR 1.177 Issuance of multiple reissue patents.
(a) The Office may reissue a patent as multiple reissue patents. If applicant files more than one application for the reissue of a single patent, each such application must contain or be amended to contain in the first sentence of the specification a notice stating that more than one reissue application has been filed and identifying each of the reissue applications by relationship, application number and filing date. The Office may correct by certificate of correction under § 1.322 any reissue patent resulting from an application to which this paragraph applies that does not contain the required notice.
(b) If applicant files more than one application for the reissue of a single patent, each claim of the patent being reissued must be presented in each of the reissue applications as an amended, unamended, or canceled (shown in brackets) claim, with each such claim bearing the same number as in the patent being reissued. The same claim of the patent being reissued may not be presented in its original unamended form for examination in more than one of such multiple reissue applications. The numbering of any added claims in any of the multiple reissue applications must follow the number of the highest numbered original patent claim.
(c) If any one of the several reissue applications by itself fails to correct an error in the original patent as required by 35 U.S.C. 251 but is otherwise in condition for allowance, the Office may suspend action in the allowable application until all issues are resolved as to at least one of the remaining reissue applications. The Office may also merge two or more of the multiple reissue applications into a single reissue application. No reissue application containing only unamended patent claims and not correcting an error in the original patent will be passed to issue by itself.
The court in In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 876-77, 42 USPQ2d 1471, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) stated that "[t]he statute does not prohibit divisional or continuation reissue applications, and does not place stricter limitations on such applications when they are presented by reissue, provided of course that the statutory requirements specific to reissue applications are met." Following the decision in Graff, the Office has adopted a policy of treating continuations and divisionals of reissue applications, to the extent possible, in the same manner as continuations and divisionals of non-reissue applications.
Questions relating to the propriety of divisional reissue applications and continuation reissue applications should be referred via the Technology Center (TC) Special Program Examiner to the Office of Patent Legal Administration.
DIVISIONAL REISSUE APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.176(b) permits the examiner to require restriction in a reissue application between the original claims of the patent and any newly added claims which are directed to a separate and distinct invention(s). See also MPEP § 1450. As a result of such a restriction requirement, divisional applications may be filed for each of the inventions identified in the restriction requirement.
In addition, applicant may initiate a division of the claims by filing more than one reissue application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.177. The multiple reissue applications which are filed may contain different groups of claims from among the original patent claims, or some of the reissue applications may contain newly added groups (not present in the original patent). There is no requirement that the claims of the multiple reissue applications be independent and distinct from one another; if they are not independent and distinct from one another, the examiner must apply the appropriate double patenting rejections.
There is no requirement that a family of divisional reissue applications issue at the same time; however, it is required that they contain a cross reference to each other in the specification. 37 CFR 1.177(a) requires that all multiple reissue applications resulting from a single patent must include as the first sentence of their respective specifications a cross reference to the other reissue application(s). Accordingly, the first sentence of each reissue specification must provide notice stating that more than one reissue application has been filed, and it must identify each of the reissue applications and their relationship within the family of reissue applications, and to the original patent. An example of the suggested language to be inserted is as follows:
Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of Patent No. 9,999,999. The reissue applications are application numbers 09/999,994 (the present application), 09/999,995, and 09/999,998, all of which are divisional reissues of Patent No. 9,999,999.
The examiner should object to the specification and require an appropriate amendment if applicant fails to include such a cross reference to the other reissue applications in the first sentence of the specification of each of the reissue applications.
Where one of the divisional applications of the family has issued without the required cross reference to the other reissue application(s), the examiner will refer the matter to his/her Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE). The SPE will initiate a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.322 to include the appropriate cross reference in the already issued first reissue patent before passing the pending reissue application to issue. Form paragraph 10.19 may be used for such purpose. After the SPE prepares the memorandum as per form paragraph 10.19, the patent file with the memorandum should be forwarded to the Certificates of Correction Branch for issuance of a certificate. >The examiner should make a reference in the pending divisional reissue application to the fact that an actual request for a Certificate of Correction has been initiated in the first reissue patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(a), e.g., by an entry in the search notes or in an examiner's amendment.<
¶ 10.19 Memorandum - Certificate of Correction (Cross-Reference to Other Reissues in Family)
DATE: [1]
TO: Certificates of Correction Branch
FROM: [2], SPE, Art Unit [3]
SUBJECT: Request for Certificate of Correction
Please issue a Certificate of Correction in U. S. Letters Patent No. [4] as specified on the attached Certificate.
______________________
[5], SPE
Art Unit [6]
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE CERTIFICATE
Patent No. [7]
Patented: [8]
The present reissue patent issued from an application that is one of a family of divisional reissue applications resulting from Patent No. [9]. The present reissue patent has issued without the cross reference to the other reissue application(s) of the family which is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(a). Accordingly, insert in the first sentence of the specification as follows:
Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of patent [9]. The reissue applications are [10].
_________________________
[11], Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit [12]
Examiner Note
1 In bracket 9, insert the patent number of the patent for which multiple reissue divisional applications have been filed.
2 This is an internal memo and must not be mailed to the applicant. This memo should accompany the patented file to the Certificates of Correction Branch as noted in form paragraphs 10.13 and 10.14.
3. In brackets 5 and 11, insert the name of SPE and provide the signature of the SPE above each line.
4. In brackets 6 and 12, insert the Art Unit number.
5. Two separate pages of USPTO letterhead will be printed when using this form paragraph.
6. In bracket 10, identify each of the reissue applications (including the present application) and their relationship within the family of reissue applications, and to the original patent.
In addition to the amendment to the first sentence of the specification, the reissue application cross references will also be reflected in the file by way of the bibliographic data sheet reprint (for 09/ and later series), or the front face of the reissue file wrapper (for 08/ and earlier series), for all the multiple reissue applications, so that adequate notice is provided that more than one reissue application has been filed for a single original patent. >(For IFW processing, see IFW Manual.)<
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(b) all of the claims of the patent to be reissued must be presented in each reissue application in some form, i.e., as amended, as unamended or as canceled. Further, the same patent claim cannot be presented in more than one of the reissue applications, as a pending claim, in its original unamended version for examination. Finally, any added claims must be numbered beginning with the next highest number following the last patent claim.
If the same or similar claims are presented in more than one of the multiple reissue applications, the possibility of statutory double patenting (35 U.S.C. 101) or non-statutory (judicially created doctrine) double patenting should be considered by the examiner during examination, and the appropriate rejections made. A terminal disclaimer may be filed to overcome an obviousness type double patenting rejection. The terminal disclaimer is necessary in order to ensure common ownership of the reissue patents throughout the remainder of the unexpired term of the original patent. >Whenever a divisional reissue application is filed with a copy of the oath/declaration and assignee consent from the parent reissue application, the copy of the assignee consent from the parent reissue application should not be accepted. The copy of the consent from the parent reissue application does not indicate that the assignee has consented to the addition of the new invention of the divisional reissue application to the original patent. The Office of Initial Patent Examination (OIPE) should accord a filing date and send out a notice of missing parts stating that there is no proper consent and setting a period of time for filing the missing part and for payment of any surcharge required under 37 CFR 1.53(f) and 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. The copy of the reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by OIPE, since it is an oath/declaration, even though it may be improper under 35 U.S.C. 251. The examiner should check the copy of the oath/declaration to ensure that it identifies an error being corrected by the divisional reissue application. The copy of the oath/declaration from the parent reissue application may or may not cover the error being corrected by the divisional reissue application since the divisional reissue application is (by definition) directed to a new invention. If it does not, the examiner should reject the claims of the divisional reissue application under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based on an oath/declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by the divisional reissue application, and require a new oath/declaration. See MPEP § 1414. If the copy of the reissue oath/declaration from the parent reissue application does in fact cover an error being corrected in the divisional reissue application, no such rejection should be made. However, since a new invention is being added by the filing of the divisional reissue application, a supplemental reissue oath/declaration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.175 (b)(1) will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.<
Situations yielding divisional reissues occur infrequently and usually involve only two such files. It should be noted, however, that in rare instances in the past, there have been more than two (and as many as five) divisional reissues of a patent. >For treatment of a plurality of divisional reissue applications resulting from a requirement to restrict to distinct inventions or a requirement to elect species, see MPEP § 1450.<
CONTINUATION REISSUE APPLICATIONS
A continuation of a reissue is not ordinarily filed "for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented" as called for in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251. The decision of In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) interprets 35 U.S.C. 251 to permit multiple reissue patents to issue even where the multiple reissue patents are not for "distinct and separate parts of the thing patented." The court stated:
Section 251[2] is plainly intended as enabling, not as limiting. Section 251[2] has the effect of assuring that a different burden is not placed on divisional or continuation reissue applications, compared with divisions and continuations of original applications, by codifying the Supreme Court decision which recognized that more than one patent can result from a reissue proceeding. Thus § 251[2] places no greater burden on Mr. Graff's continuation reissue application than upon a continuation of an original application; § 251[2] neither overrides, enlarges, nor limits the statement in § 251[3] that the provisions of Title 5 apply to reissues.
111 F.3d at 877, 42 USPQ2d at 1473. Accordingly, prosecution of a continuation of a reissue application will be permitted (despite the existence of the pending parent reissue application) where the continuation complies with the rules for reissue.
The parent and the continuation reissue applications should be examined together if possible. An appropriate amendment to the continuing data entries must be made to the first sentence of the specification, (see the discussion above under the heading "Divisional Reissue Applications"), and to the bibliographic data sheet reprint (for 09/ and later series) or to the front face of the reissue file wrapper (for 08/ and earlier series), for both the parent and the continuation reissue applications, so that the parent-continuation relationship of the reissue applications is specifically identified and notice is provided of both reissue applications. >(For IFW processing, see IFW Manual.<
Where the parent reissue application issues prior to the examination of the continuation, the claims of the continuation should be carefully reviewed for double patenting over the claims of the parent. Where the parent and the continuation reissue applications are examined together, a provisional double patenting rejection should be made in both cases as to any overlapping claims. See MPEP § 804 - § 804.04 as to double patenting rejections. Any terminal disclaimer filed to obviate an obviousness-type double patenting rejection ensures common ownership of the reissue patents throughout the remainder of the unexpired term of the original patent.
If the parent reissue application issues without any cross reference to the continuation, amendment of the parent reissue patent to include a cross-reference to the continuation must be effected at the time of allowance of the continuation application by Certificate of Correction. See the discussion above under the heading "Divisional Reissue Applications" as to how the Certificate of Correction is to be provided.
>Again, the examiner should make reference in the pending divisional reissue application to the fact that an actual request for a Certificate of Correction has been generated in the first reissue patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(a), e.g., by an entry in the search notes or in an examiner's amendment.
Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the oath/declaration and assignee consent from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the copy of the consent of the parent reissue application should not be accepted. The copy of the consent of the parent reissue application does not indicate that the assignee has consented to the addition of the new error correction of the continuation reissue application to the original patent. Presumably, a new correction has been added, since the parent reissue application is still pending. OIPE should accord a filing date and send out a notice of missing parts stating that there is no proper consent and setting a period of time for filing the missing part and for payment of any surcharge required under 37 CFR 1.53(f) and 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. The copy of the reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by OIPE, since it is a oath/declaration, albeit improper under 35 U.S.C. 251. The examiner should reject the claims of the continuation reissue application under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based on an oath/declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by the continuation reissue application, and should require a new oath/declaration. See MPEP § 1414.
Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the oath/declaration and assignee consent from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is, or will be abandoned, the copy of the consent should be accepted by both OIPE and the examiner. The reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by OIPE, and the examiner should check to ensure that the oath/declaration identifies an error that is being corrected in the continuation reissue application. See MPEP § 1414. If a preliminary amendment was filed with the continuation reissue application, the examiner should check for the need of a supplemental reissue oath/declaration. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.175 (b)(1), for any error corrected via the preliminary amendment which is not covered by the oath or declaration submitted in the parent reissue application, applicant must submit a supplemental oath/declaration stating that every such error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the applicant. See MPEP § 1414 and § 1414.01.<
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents