Portfolio Strategy / English Article
Using Divisional Applications to Extend the Patent Protection Chain
How divisional practice can support layered protection, prosecution flexibility, and long-term portfolio control.
Divisional Applications Are Strategic Tools, Not Administrative Leftovers
A divisional application should not be viewed merely as a procedural response to unity objections. Used well, it can extend a patent protection chain, preserve claim opportunities, and create a layered portfolio around one technical disclosure.
Many inventions contain more than one protectable idea. A single claim set may be too narrow to cover all commercial directions or too broad to survive examination. Divisional practice allows an applicant to separate technical themes and pursue them with different claim focuses.
Divisional Applications Are Strategic Tools, Not Administrative Leftovers: practical detail
For portfolio owners and overseas counsel managing China families, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with disclosure mapping, claim-family planning, timing review before allowance or closure, and commercial ranking of alternative inventions. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.
The team should record concrete evidence: original specification support, embodiment groups, fallback features, commercial product roadmaps, competitor entry paths, and prosecution deadlines. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.
A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which technical themes deserve separate claim pursuit and which disclosed content should remain only as support for the parent case. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.
Why One Application Often Cannot Carry the Whole Business
A product may include a core structure, a control method, a material improvement, a manufacturing process, and an application scenario. If all of these are forced into one claim strategy, some valuable content may be abandoned during prosecution. Later, when competitors enter through a side door, the company may find that the original filing disclosed useful material but failed to claim it.
A divisional strategy preserves the ability to convert disclosed alternatives into independent protection. It is especially useful when the technical direction is commercially uncertain at the filing date but may become important later.
Why One Application Often Cannot Carry the Whole Business: practical detail
For portfolio owners and overseas counsel managing China families, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with disclosure mapping, claim-family planning, timing review before allowance or closure, and commercial ranking of alternative inventions. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.
The team should record concrete evidence: original specification support, embodiment groups, fallback features, commercial product roadmaps, competitor entry paths, and prosecution deadlines. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.
A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which technical themes deserve separate claim pursuit and which disclosed content should remain only as support for the parent case. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.
How to Design a Divisional Chain
The first step is to map the disclosure. Identify every technical problem, every group of technical features, and every alternative embodiment that may support a separate claim direction. The second step is to rank these directions by business value, grant probability, competitor blocking effect, and fallback usefulness.
The third step is timing. A divisional should be considered while procedural opportunities remain available. If the applicant waits until the parent case is closed, important options may disappear. Divisional planning should therefore be discussed during drafting, during office-action response, and before allowance.
How to Design a Divisional Chain: practical detail
For portfolio owners and overseas counsel managing China families, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with disclosure mapping, claim-family planning, timing review before allowance or closure, and commercial ranking of alternative inventions. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.
The team should record concrete evidence: original specification support, embodiment groups, fallback features, commercial product roadmaps, competitor entry paths, and prosecution deadlines. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.
A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which technical themes deserve separate claim pursuit and which disclosed content should remain only as support for the parent case. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.
The Examiner's Perspective
From an examiner's perspective, each divisional application must still have support in the original disclosure and must be examined as a real invention. The applicant should avoid artificial splitting that creates weak cases. A strong divisional has its own technical problem, its own feature combination, and a claim scope that can be defended.
The purpose is not to multiply filings mechanically. The purpose is to protect different layers of value that were already present in the original technical disclosure.
The Examiner's Perspective: practical detail
For portfolio owners and overseas counsel managing China families, this point should be treated as a working step rather than a slogan. The practical work is to connect the article's idea with disclosure mapping, claim-family planning, timing review before allowance or closure, and commercial ranking of alternative inventions. That is what turns a general insight into a repeatable professional service.
The team should record concrete evidence: original specification support, embodiment groups, fallback features, commercial product roadmaps, competitor entry paths, and prosecution deadlines. Without this evidence layer, the method remains only an opinion. With it, the article becomes useful for client communication, internal decision-making, patent drafting, prosecution strategy, and later portfolio review.
A complete application of this section normally ends with a decision: which technical themes deserve separate claim pursuit and which disclosed content should remain only as support for the parent case. Ma Su's examiner background matters here because the decision is not based only on enthusiasm; it is tested against technical contribution, support in the disclosure, likely examination reasoning, and business value.
Original Chinese Essay
如何利用分案延长专利保护链
分案申请的“时间窗口”与战略价值：
在专利实务中，分案申请往往被视为解决单一性缺陷的“被动救济”手段。然而，真正高明的专利布局者深知：分案申请是一把可以主动挥舞的战略利器——它不仅能弥补撰写缺陷、调整保护范围，更能构建多层次、立体化的专利保护网，延长专利保护链的生命周期。
本文将从立法本意出发，结合中外真实案例，深度解析分案申请的战略价值与操作要点，并提供一份可操作的自检清单，助您将分案申请从“被动应付”升级为“主动布局”。
一、分案申请的立法本意：从单一性原则说起
《专利法》第三十一条规定：“一件发明或者实用新型专利申请应当限于一项发明或者实用新型。”这就是专利制度的单一性原则，其立法目的在于：
- 便于分类检索：一件申请对应一个发明构思，便于专利审查和公众检索；
- 避免收费过低：防止申请人通过一件申请获得多项发明的保护，规避应缴费用；
- 保障公众利益：使公众能够清晰了解专利权的边界。
然而，单一性原则也可能导致申请人的正当利益受损——当一件申请中包含了多项具有单一性的发明时，申请人应当有机会为那些无法在母案中保护的发明寻求保护。这正是分案申请制度的立法本意：“为申请人提供一种救济方式，是给予申请人在一件专利申请中不能被保护的其他发明创造以保护的一种救济途径。”
二、分案申请的“时间窗口”：何时可以提出？
《专利法实施细则》第四十二条第一款规定：“一件专利申请包括两项以上发明、实用新型或者外观设计的，申请人可以在收到国务院专利行政部门对原申请作出授予专利权通知书之日起两个月期限届满之前向国务院专利行政部门提出分案申请；但是，专利申请已经被驳回、撤回或者视为撤回的，不能提出分案申请。”
综合《专利审查指南》的规定，分案申请的“时间窗口”可以概括为：只要原申请处于“在审未结案”状态，均可提出分案申请 。具体包括：
重要提示：对于基于分案申请再次提出的“二次分案申请”，其递交时间仍应根据原申请审核。唯一的例外是：审查员针对一次分案申请发出了指明单一性缺陷的审查意见，此时即使原申请已结案，仍可提出二次分案申请。
三、典型案例警示：分案不当的惨痛教训
案例：骑客平衡车——分案超范围导致专利全部无效
2023年，国家知识产权局公布“十大案件”之一的“电动平衡车”发明专利无效案，该案涉及浙江骑客机器人科技有限公司的一件分案申请，最终因**分案超范围**被宣告全部无效。
案情回顾：
- 母案公开了一种三层结构的电动平衡车车身：顶盖、内盖和底盖，其中内盖作为骨架被包覆在内部不外露；
- 分案申请对说明书进行了大量修改：将“内盖”修改为“支撑盖”，增加了“支撑盖和顶盖一体成型”“支撑盖采用刚性壳体形状”“可用硬质塑料制造”等内容，并删除了“内盖被包覆在内部不外露”的技术特征；
- 根据修改后的说明书，平衡车车身实际变为一种两层结构（支撑盖与顶盖一体成型），这是母案中未记载的方案。
无效决定理由：
合议组指出：“分案申请在母案记载的三层结构的基础上，通过改变部件名称、增加和删除技术特征，增加了母案中未记载的两层结构的方案。”最终，以分案申请全部权利要求均超范围为由，宣告专利权全部无效。
本案启示：
1.分案不得超范围：分案申请的内容不得超出原申请记载的范围——不仅包括权利要求书，也包括说明书；
2. 说明书的修改需谨慎：对说明书进行实质性修改，可能导致本领域技术人员获得的技术信息发生改变，进而影响对权利要求的理解；
3. 辅助考量因素：在该案中，合议组还考虑了申请人的技术贡献（三层结构是核心改进）、系列申请状况（三层结构已在其他申请中获得保护）、侵权诉讼情况（专利权人主张两层结构侵权）等因素，增强内心确信。
案例：美国专利实践中的分案策略
在美国专利实务中，分案申请（Divisional Application）是常见的布局工具。一个典型案例是高通公司与苹果公司的专利大战。
高通通过一系列分案申请，构建了庞大的专利组合。当苹果发布iPhone时，高通利用这些分案专利发起侵权诉讼，其中多项专利源自同一母案的延续申请（Continuation）和分案申请。这些分案专利的权利要求经过精心设计，精准覆盖苹果产品的技术特征，成为高通收取高额许可费的“武器库”。
启示：通过分案申请，申请人可以：
- 在母案授权后，基于相同的原始公开内容，继续提出新的权利要求；
- 根据市场变化和竞争对手的产品，调整权利要求的保护范围；
- 形成“专利组合拳”，延长专利保护链。
四、主动分案的三大战略场景
除了被动应对单一性缺陷，申请人可以在以下场景主动运用分案申请，实现战略价值最大化：
场景一：争取争议技术方案的授权
在发明专利审查过程中，经常出现申请人与审查员对部分权利要求的新颖性和创造性认定存在较大差异的情况。
操作策略：
- 先将母案权利要求修改至符合审查员要求的文本，尽快获得授权；
- 同时，针对具有争议的技术方案提出分案申请，争取二次审查的机会。
风险提示：后续审查员在审理分案时，可能会受到母案审理思路的影响。为减少这种影响，在母案的意见陈述书中，应尽量强调“本次修改仅仅是为了尽快获得授权而作的修改”，避免将新增技术特征作为核心技术特征去争辩创造性。
场景二：针对竞品布局专利
申请人在专利申请过程中，可能发现多个改进方向，但不确定竞争对手会从哪个方向进行规避设计。
操作策略：
- 在母案中采用“跑马圈地”的方式，争取较大的保护范围；
- 将多个可能的技术方案以并列引用的方式撰写在权利要求中；
- 后续结合自己的产品和竞争对手的产品，针对性地提出分案申请。
关键前提：在撰写母案说明书时，必须投入大量工作量，保证每个方案后续都能被独立地分出来。
场景三：弥补撰写缺陷，避免“捐献原则”风险
根据《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第五条，对于仅在说明书中记载而未被权利要求保护的技术方案，视为“捐献”给公众，不得在侵权诉讼中主张等同侵权。
操作策略：
- 对于原申请说明书中公开、但未写入权利要求的重要技术方案，通过分案申请予以保护；
- 避免在日后侵权纠纷中陷入“被动捐献”的不利局面。
典型案例：原申请公开了一种光学系统以及用于该光学系统的光学传感器，但权利要求仅保护光学系统。申请人可在原申请结案前，基于光学传感器提出分案申请。
五、分案申请的实务操作要点
1. 分案申请不得超范围
这是分案申请的红线。《专利法实施细则》第四十三条明确规定：“分案申请不得超出原申请记载的范围。”
判断标准：技术方案应当记载在原申请文件中，或者能够由原申请文件记载的内容直接地、毫无疑义地确定。
2. 分案申请的类别不得改变
原申请是发明的，分案申请也应当是发明；原申请是实用新型的，分案申请也应当是实用新型。
3. 分案申请的优先权
分案申请可以享有原申请的优先权日。但需要注意：分案申请是一个独立的新申请，其优先权声明应当在提出分案申请时一并提出。如果分案申请提交时未提出优先权声明，后续可能面临原申请影响新颖性的风险。
4. 分案申请的权利要求撰写
保护主题应明确：分案申请的权利要求应清楚限定要求保护的主题，且该主题应当记载在原申请文件中；
- 避免主题变更：如果在分案申请中先要求保护主题A，后续修改为主题B，修改后的主题B可能被视为与原来要求保护的主题缺乏单一性而不被接受。
分案申请制度设立的初衷，是保障专利申请人的正当利益不至于因单一性原则的规定而受到损害。 然而，在实务中，分案申请的价值远不止于此。
分案申请既可以是维权时的利器，也可能是致败的陷阱。关键在于：回归分案制度的立法本意，在尊重原始公开内容的前提下，审慎规划、主动布局。
暂无评论