<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp4a1d7898yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Thank you Jeff.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">This already entered Canada and the Canadian examiner split it up.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I don't know if I will need to file 6 divisionals in the next 1-2 years, or only 1-2.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">That might influence how we proceed.</div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-Bill</div>
</div><div id="yahoo_quoted_1152614145" class="yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 06:29:36 PM GMT+2, Jeffrey Semprebon via Pct <pct@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="yiv1642293056"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Bill,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It's unclear whether this separation was done on the applicant's initiative or was responsive to a Canadian action.<br clear="none"><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Advice I got some years back from one Canadian counsel as to whether one could rely on a PCT finding of lack of unity to avoid the dreaded double-patenting rejection was that they hadn't found sufficient caselaw to provide a definite answer. As such, their advice was to enter w/ claims to all the inventions (although not necessary dependent claims, since CA no longer allows cramming in as many claims as possible w/ no excess fees) and leave it to the examiner to restrict. Slower, but safer. Of course, if every applicant follows this, the issue of whether or not a PCT lack of unity suffices will remain unanswered.</div><div><br clear="none"></div></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="yiv1642293056gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;">-Jeff </span><div><br clear="none" style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;"><span style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;">Jeffrey E. Semprebon</span><br clear="none" style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;"><font face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="letter-spacing:0.1px;">Registered Patent Agent (mechanical) looking for remote work</span></font></div><div><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:jesemprebon@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:jesemprebon@gmail.com">jesemprebon@gmail.com</a><br clear="none" style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;"><span style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;">72 Myrtle Street</span><br clear="none" style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;"><span style="font-family:Roboto, Arial, sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px;">Claremont, New Hampshire 03743</span><br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div><br clear="none"><div class="yiv1642293056gmail_quote yiv1642293056gmail_quote_container"><div id="yiv1642293056yqt80924" class="yiv1642293056yqt7877681714"><div dir="ltr" class="yiv1642293056gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 11:11\u202fAM William Ahmed via Pct <<a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com">pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;" class="yiv1642293056gmail_quote"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div dir="ltr">I have a question for any Canada-licensed patent attorney on this list.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Background --> Canada has a known challenge related to double patenting, and unlike USA there is no objection of submitting a terminal disclaimer to obvvercome.</div><div dir="ltr">As such it is not uncommon for applicants to provoke a 'unity of invention' objection - the CA examiner then splits it up into many inventions, and then neither of them </div><div dir="ltr">can be references against each other for double patenting. Then the applicant just file many divisionals..</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">My issue -> <span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">PCT entered Canadian national phase. Applicant has now split it up into 7 inventions.</span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I think if I then file 6 divisionals at ONCE, I am OK - the unity of invention objection would protect these divisionals from each other (and from the PCT national phase filing)</div><div dir="ltr">with respect to Canadian double patenting. However, that is a lot of cash paid now, instead of 'spacing it out' over years.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">MY QUESTION --> instead of filing 6 divisionals at ONCE (i.e. in parallel), could I do it in SERIAL (i.e. first a divisional, and then a divisional of divisional, and then a divisional of divisional of divisional), and so one.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">If I file in SERIAL (i.e. 1st generation DIV, then 2nd generation DIV), would I achieve the 'benefit' of immunity from double patenting in Canada based on the </div><div dir="ltr">'large unity of invention requirement' in the PCT national phase filing.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I hope this was clear - it is NUANCED, and I hope I successfully explained the issues.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">NOTE -- some jurisdictions like Japan treat divisionals and divisionals-of-divisionals the SAME. In other jurisdictions (e.g. China) there is a disctinction.</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Thanks,</div><div dir="ltr">Bill</div></div></div>-- <br clear="none">
Pct mailing list<br clear="none">
<a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com">Pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br clear="none">
<a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br clear="none">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div><div class="yqt7877681714" id="yqt73126">-- <br clear="none">Pct mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com" href="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com">Pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>