2009年8月28日 星期五

限制與選擇 V

限制/選擇要求下的請願書(Petition)- 續(情況二)
Petition From Restriction/Election Requirement

情況二:「有異議」
參考審查基準821.01 - After Election With Traverse
申請人能對審查委員提出的限制選擇提出反駁(with traverse),若經過重新考慮,仍認為此限制要求為適當的,則下次Office Action則為Final Office Action or 再次restriction requirement (updated on June. 8, 2011, 下次可能仍是發出限制選擇要求,除非審查委員認定回應是錯誤且失敗,才可能發出Final),而其中將會包括審查委員不接受反駁的理由。
[原文]
Where the initial requirement is traversed, it should be reconsidered. If, upon reconsideration, the examiner is still of the opinion that restriction is proper, it should be repeated and made final in the next Office action. (See MPEP § 803.01.) In doing so, the examiner should reply to the reasons or arguments advanced by applicant in the traverse. Form paragraph 8.25 should be used to make a restriction requirement final.

相反地,如果審查委員經過考慮,做出前次限制/選擇要求(全部或是部份)不適當的決定,則應於下次Office Action說明清楚,並撤回全部或部份的限制/選擇要求,並指出合併各被選擇的組別。
[原文]
If the examiner, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion that the requirement for restriction is improper >in whole or in part<, he or she should >clearly<>in whole or in part, specify which groups have been rejoined, and give an action on the merits of all the claims directed to the elected invention and any invention rejoined with the elected invention<.

經審查,申請案為可核准,此時,除非現存的權利範圍是經「有異議」的未選擇的權利範圍,否則申請人經有一個月的時間回應,或是提出其他方案。如果並未提出任何動作(包括刪除、修正),則為表示授權給審查委員刪除未選擇的權利範圍,並發出領證通知。
[原文]
8.03 In Condition for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn with Traverse
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim (權利範圍項次) directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on (發明或species). Applicant is given ONE MONTH or THIRTY DAYS from the date of this letter, whichever is longer, to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action ( 37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner's Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.

Ron

限制與選擇IV

限制/選擇要求下的請願書(Petition)(情況一)
Petition From Restriction/Election Requirement

當一個申請案的請求項包括有相互獨立(independent)與可區分(distinct)的複數個發明,審查委員可提出限制/選擇要求(Restriction/Election)
詳細內容可參考:
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/restrictionelection-in-us-patent.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/restrictionelection-ii.html

收到限制/選擇要求後,若有不同的意見,除了仍然要回應此限制/選擇的Office Action之外,可提出請願書(Petition),其中包括不同意審查委員區隔本案的爭點,亦可包括權利範圍的修正,但是費用就與單純回覆限制/選擇不同,而請願書提交日仍應於期限到之前,或是提出訴願通知(Notice of Appeal)之前

相關規定:
MPEP 818.03(c) - Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
其中引用37 CFR 1.144 - Petition from requirement for restriction
在收到限制要求之後,申請人除了回覆此限制要求之外,更可提出請願書,要求審查官(Director)重新審視此要求。請願書甚至可於USPTO做出最終審定,或是經選擇後的權利範圍被核准以後提交,但是不能晚於提出訴願的時間。
[原文]
After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).

情況一:「無異議」
如果申請人在回覆此限制選擇之後並未明確、具體地提出不同的意見,此類選擇將會被視為「無異議」選擇(election without traverse)。
[原文]
If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02 (Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply)

Ron

名詞檢索 - 好用的翻譯工具

好用的翻譯工具

在閱讀外國專利文件或是翻譯專利稿時,常需要準確的翻譯名詞,所以翻譯工具就變成十分重要,介紹幾個

1. Google Translate
http://translate.google.com/

這是我常用的工具,尤其是在看外國文時,將外文貼上,就可翻譯到看得懂的文字
當然,不建議在這裡用段落或是全文翻譯,不是很準,翻完再修稿有時更費心力

2. 智財局最新的中英文對照詞庫查詢系統
http://paterm.tipo.gov.tw/IPOTechTerm/searchInput.jsp

這裡可以準確又有公信力地找到應該有的詞彙
也變成我隨時待命的網頁

3. 得獎的W3Dictionary
http://www.w3dictionary.com/
http://zh-tw.w3dictionary.org/
http://www.w3dictionary.org/

意外找到這個網站,也算我寫這篇報導的理由之一
從一個簡單的關鍵字,從這裡可以得到很多相關的資訊與答案
舉例來說:
我找個「結電容」的相關資訊,得到:
http://zh-tw.w3dictionary.org/index.php?q=junction%20capacitance
右方就出現許多相關的技術名詞,能夠方便後續的搜尋
畫面重點就是「結電容」的翻譯

她還提供瀏覽器的ToolBar

其他還有:
4. onelook
http://www.onelook.com/

5.Dictionary.com


這個網站給的訊息不枉拿到dictionary.com的網域名稱
算是名符其實!
簡單找個字,就有很豐富的答案

6. 利用"Define:"在Google找答案


其實還有很多,當然最方便的方式就是直接在Google/Bing上找
如果是找專利上的用法、用語、專業名詞,常常Google Patent也是在待命中的網頁

Ron

2009年8月26日 星期三

About Claims XXII - 商業模式專利

商業模式(business model)

雖然商業模式是否是可專利的法定標的還有爭論,但仍有不少專利獲取美國專利
在美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)早認為只要概念或數學演算有實際應用,即可為可專利的法定標的,其中產生有實際的轉換,而不見得要有實際的產品

相關判例可參考State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group

「1998年,CAFC做出State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group判決,進一步確認電腦軟體的可專利性,US5,193,056揭露一種用於共同基金的hub and spoke方法(原用於網路技術),其中應用軟體執行判斷基金資產的比例等訊息,銀行宣稱這是不可專利的數學演算法,或是一個商業方法,但是CAFC認為,商業方法可為專利標的,說明軟體或方法產生有用、具體的結果應可被專利。」

根據USPTO白皮書,商業模式方法可歸類為類別705
Class 705 DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION
此為有關金融、商業實務、管理或是定價的資料處理

列舉其中一些大的次要類別(subclass):
1 AUTOMATED ELECTRICAL FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS PRACTICE OR MANAGEMENT RRANGEMENT
50 BUSINESS PROCESSING USING CRYPTOGRAPHY
80 ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION

經過檢索,目前以Class 705核准的美國專利約有19611件(關鍵字:CCL/705/$)

商業模式的專利自然會以方法步驟表達,但仍可以means-plus-function表達
(這是個處理訂單的流程, US7,548,877)
1. A method for processing an order comprising:
inputting at least one main order comprising at least one of a first product type, a second product type, or combinations thereof, into a user interface;
storing each of the at least one main order as a main order file;
sending each of the at least one main order file to a product processing unit;
accessing a product database to determine a product type of each of the at least one product comprising each of the at least one main order file, wherein the product type identifies an association between a product and a type of multilevel marketing business model;
accessing a user database to determine a user classification for a user placing the main order, wherein the user classification identifies a classification of a user with respect to one or more multilevel marketing business models;
parsing each of the at least one main order file into a first suborder and a second suborder based at least in part on the user classification of the user placing the order and the product types of the first and second products;
storing each of the first suborder as a first suborder file;
storing each of the second suborder as a second suborder file;
sending the each of the first suborder files to a first product type processing unit to fulfill each of the first suborders;
processing each of the first suborders according to a first multilevel marketing business model;
sending each of the second suborder files to a second product type processing unit to fulfill each of the second suborders; and
processing each of the second suborders according to a second multilevel marketing business model, wherein the first and second multilevel marketing business models are different.
這件案子文字中並未與硬體相連,但是明顯是針對一些「東西」下訂單,且產生有用的結果,算是一個標準的商業方法專利

US7,542,924
7. A system comprising:
a network; and
a network server computer connected to a client computer through the network, the network server computer responding to requests from the client computer to:
associate a primary online shopping basket and at least one secondary online shopping basket with customer-defined rules that define purchasing requirements for items within online shopping baskets, the online shopping baskets including the primary online shopping basket and the at least one secondary online shopping basket;
associate a first customer ID for the primary online shopping basket and a second unique customer ID for the at least one secondary online shopping basket;
determine whether selected items selected for entry into the online shopping baskets satisfy the customer-defined rules;
allow entry into the online shopping baskets of the selected items that satisfy the customer-defined rules;
automatically merge at least one secondary online shopping basket into the primary online shopping basket to create a merged online shopping basket and display contents of the merged online shopping basket on a single web page and being viewable at one time before checkout of the selected items in the merged online shopping basket; and
group the items in the merged online shopping basket according to customer IDs and display the contents of merged online shopping basket in lists grouped according to customer IDs and being viewable at one time.
這件案子為典型的硬體綁軟體的商業方法專利,硬體只有兩個:網路與連接網路的電腦伺服器,再用一連串動詞表達伺服器所做的事情!
不妨也可參考一下!

其他如系統,並使用該方法的裝置皆可為專利標的
整體來說,只要與硬體連結,商業方法本身又具有新穎性與進步性,應為可專利標的!

資料參考:
Landis Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting
另可參考:
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/08/one-click-patent.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/04/history-of-software-patents-iv.html

Ron

美國智慧財產的憲法依據


美國智慧財產的憲法依據

翻到美國憲法Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
故事從這裡開始,智慧財產也是讓這個國家進步的原因之一

翻到美國憲法Section 8, Article I
提到立法權的範疇(Scope of Legislative Power),當中有一段話:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
為了促進科學與有用的技術進展,憲法保障作者與發明人在一個有限時間,在個人的寫作與發現上有獨占的權利

中華民國的憲法同樣也有一些基本保障,但主要是提供獎勵:


資料參考:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Evan K. Butts, US patent attorney
Ron

2009年8月25日 星期二

Wire-Free Power

Wire-Free Power

最近突然看到幾個無線充電的「電板」產品
手機或是一些MP3音樂播放機就直接「放在」這個電板上充電
不用麻煩連接專屬充電器或是一堆電線

這個概念早在好幾年前就聽到朋友說過,直覺就大概是感應線圈相互感應充電
甚至有些沒有連接器的手機(如PHS幾款)早就出現了

但如果要適用於很多種機器,就可能沒有那麼簡單才是
看到早於1999年公告的美國專利第5963012號所揭露的無線電池充電系統

大概就可看出技術基本的型態
此案主要範圍如下:
1. A battery charging system, comprising:
a rechargeable battery including:
a battery parameter sensor for measuring battery parameter information of the rechargeable battery; and
a proximity sensor coupled to the battery parameter sensor;
a battery charging device for recharging the rechargeable battery, including:
a controller for storing a charging process;
an excitation circuit for activating the proximity sensor; and
a reader circuit for receiving the battery parameter information, the controller adaptively modifying its charging process in response to the battery parameter information.
主要有充電電池、參數感應器、裝置接近感應器、充電裝置、控制器與感應線圈,由於要適用多種充電電池,各充電電池的參數想必是必要的,並且透過接近感應器判斷物件接近的距離,這自然也是必要特徵

2005年公告的美國專利第6,913,477號所揭露的無線手機電源供應器,也可看出技術特徵在於充電電池與充電器間透過線圈,而且是在平板上的多個小線圈來連結,
這件所獲得的權利範圍有:
(1)平面接觸裝置
(2)上述平面上的複數個電接觸點,讓接觸的充電裝置所擺放的位置不用被限制
(3)感應線圈
(4)控制單元,控制所接觸的接觸點



利用無線傳遞能量的技術早就不是新聞了:

(美國專利第6275143號)


有位在連接器公司的朋友告訴我,他快要失業了!
Ron

2009年8月18日 星期二

中國專利修法

中國專利修法

雖然這訊息來晚了,而且也是普遍瞭解,還是在這裡註記

2008年12月,中國人民大會通過第三次中國修法,且將於2009年10月1日實施,參考各方資源,重點整理如下:
  1. 採用絕對新穎性
    有別於目前實施的新穎性標準,任何中國國內外公開、公開使用、為他人知曉都會列入新穎性考量
    目前正在實施的標準,僅在中國以外地區公開使用與知曉而國內卻未公開的資訊並不會成為新穎性的判斷。
    新的新穎性判斷原則將會應用在發明、新型與新式樣上,顯然,將來接獲的中國審查意見將來接獲的審查意見將不見得會以CN案為引證案,將可能會引用其他國家,甚至台灣的引證前案,若以語言的隔閡而言,或許中華民國專利會成為檢索對象
    [原文]
    新颖性,是指该发明或者实用新型不属于现有技术;也没有同样的发明或者实用新型由他人在申请日以前向国务院专利行政部门提出过申请,并记载在申请日以后公布的专利申请文件或者公告的专利文件中
    本法所称现有技术,是指申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的技术
  2. 「境內發明」可以外國為第一申請國
    目前中國專利法要求在中國境內產生的發明,其專利申請案應以中國為第一申請國
    新法則允許「境內發明」可以中國以外國家為第一申請國,但基於中國國家安全的考量,仍需獲得中國同意才能如此,否則將喪失專利權
    這點算是相當方便的修正,且能改變中國國內專利品質不良的問題
    但可能產生的問題就是,如何判斷是「中國國內發明」,是否包括「共有」、「共同發明」的專利?
    [原文]
    任何单位或者个人可以将其在中国完成的发明创造向外国申请专利,但应当事先经国务院专利行政部门进行保密审查

  3. 明確「重複專利」
    第三次修法規定一個發明只有一種核准的專利,由於新型與設計專利申請案並非經過實審,所以會先核准專利,所以很多實務是「一案兩請」,前後或是同時申請發明與新型。
    第三次修法雖某種程度接受「一案兩請」,但之後經同意放棄新型案,則可核准「發明案」
    目前仍可實施「一案兩請」,但將來可放棄新型而保留發明案
    [原文]
    同样的发明创造只能授予一项专利权。但是,同一申请人同日对同样的发明创造既申请实用新型专利又申请发明专利,先获得的实用新型专利权尚未终止,且申请人声明放弃该实用新型专利权的,可以授予发明专利权
  4. 設計專利有新的標準
    第三次修法將設計專利納入與發明專利相同的標準之下,包括須具有絕對新穎性、並能與前案與其組合有明顯區隔(創造性),新法亦不同意註冊商標納入設計專利
    [原文]
    授予专利权的外观设计与现有设计或者现有设计特征的组合相比,应当具有明显区别
    本法所称现有设计,是指申请日以前在国内外为公众所知的设计
  5. 共有專利的確認
    第三次修法將明確化共用專利,各共有人將依協議共有權利,而未規定權利金要如何分享
    舊法中,若無協議,將導致共有人各自實施、授權給他人,而權利金應與其他共有人分享
    [原文]
    专利申请权或者专利权由两个以上单位或者个人共有,共有人对权利的行使有约定的,从其约定。没有约定的,共有人可以单独实施或者以普通许可方式许可他人实施该专利;许可他人实施该专利的,收取的使用费应当在共有人之间分配
    除前款规定的情形外,行使共有的专利申请权或者专利权应当取得全体共有人的同意
  6. 擴大專利權耗盡
    在第三次修法中,若專利權人或其授權人使用、提供他人使用、販賣、進口被專利保護的產品,沒有侵權的問題,其中包括「平行」輸入已被保護的產品,不會有侵權問題
  7. 增加損害賠償
    第三次修法同意法院在無法判斷真實損害的情況下,能將專利侵權的損害賠償提昇至1,000,000人民幣,目前僅有50萬人民幣,賠償金應包括專利權人為了阻止侵權所做的合理費用
    [原文]
    侵犯专利权的赔偿数额由当事人协商确定。协商不成的,按照权利人因被侵权所受到的损失或者侵权人因侵权所获得的利益确定;被侵权人的损失或者侵权人获得的 利益难以确定的,参照该专利许可使用费的倍数合理确定。权利人的损失、侵权人获得的利益和专利许可使用费均难以确定的,人民法院可以根据专利权的类型、侵 权行为的性质和情节等因素,确定给予1万元以上100万元以下的赔偿
    侵犯专利权的赔偿应当包括专利权人为制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支
  8. 其他:
    依赖遗传资源完成的发明创造,该遗传资源的获取或者利用违反有关法律、行政法规的规定的,不授予专利权
    一件外观设计专利申请应当限于一项外观设计。同一产品两项以上的相似外观设计,或者用于同一类别并且成套出售或者使用产品的两项以上外观设计,可以作为一件申请提出
    未经专利权人许可而制造并售出的专利侵权产品,使用者或者销售者由于不知道是专利侵权产品而购买,并为生产经营目的使用、许诺销售或者销售,能证明该产品合法来源的,不承担赔偿责任
Ron
資料參考:SIPO、Samuel Seow Law Corporation、中國全國人民代表大會網站(http://www.npc.gov.cn)(http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/2008-08/29/content_1447388.htm)

2009年8月14日 星期五

土石流專利

土石流

除了目前科技難以預知的地震外,大雨造成的土石流是台灣最大的災害
但是,難道土石流是不可預知的嗎?經檢索結果發現,其實已有很多發明人都在這方面努力了,政府不妨可以參考一下!付點權利金!

有關土石流的專利,集思廣益找到最適合有用的方法
台灣的專利,用「土石流」作為關鍵字是最簡單的了,猜想應該沒有申請人會故意避免這樣的字眼吧!

目前為止,公開的案子有41件,除了逢甲大學有幾件以外,其餘皆是個人發明,公開日大概都在2002年以後

再用「landslide or landslides」找美國專利,這個字可能不僅是指土石流,還包括山崩、走山這種吧,但件數相對少了一些,不知是否還有其他的關鍵字,公告加上公開有27件,但是,最早的申請日期卻可追溯到1977年

雖然landslide可能不只是講「土石流」,但是卻可窺探一二,利用一個工具找看看世界各國,結果發現日本有六百多件,再是中國大陸,這些結果確實跟那個國家是否有很多天災有關!

隨便瀏覽之後,感覺有些好像很複雜,跟地層有結構有關,有些卻是簡簡單單地,就利用插入地裡的感應器來偵測是否有土石滑動的情形,也有利用通訊的方式,將感測器的訊號利用手機訊號發出
有些發明目的是感測土石流或走山現象,有些則是防治方法,有些甚至是利用地層的變化來「發電

不知這些實用性如何,或許可以參考一下

Ron



2009年8月13日 星期四

About Claims XXI - Computer-related invention

電腦軟體或軟體相關發明的權利範圍

特色是:
1.一序列執行特定功能的手段
2.一序列方法程序,以解決特定問題
3.或是解決特定問題的一系列有限的步驟
4.要達成特定事情,而非僅是一些演算而已
5.電腦軟體發明是驅動電腦執行一序列步驟,而非程式本身
6.同樣要符合美國專利法第101條規定為有用的程序
7.要提出解決方案解決特定問題
8.權利範圍以步驟表達
9.可能會包括數學方程式,或是演算法
10.電腦相關發明排除美國專利法第101條規定不予專利的自然定律、數學表達式
11.審查基準規範,即使是電腦相關軟體,還是要符合前述基礎的規定,任何權利範圍的元件還需被說明書支持,並可以手段功能用語表達
12.有幾種為非法定可專利的標的:
(1)與硬體無關的資料的編譯或編排
(2)儲存在機器可讀取的儲存媒體中的程式碼,被視為是文字創作
(3)與硬體無關的資料結構
(4)操作概念的步驟,如解決特定數學問題的流程,也就是演算法則
13.權利範圍應以文字表達,程式碼不可帶入權利範圍
14.權利範圍中,應定義出使用電腦程式碼的元件,而非描述執行的功能步驟,除非僅能以程式表達
15.非法定的標的有:
(1)抽象概念
(2)自然定律
(3)自然現象
16.最近的Bilski判例:採用了一種「machine-or-transformation test」作為是否符合專利法第101條所規定的法定標的的測試

電腦軟體相關的發明在圖示上常會使用一些概圖,特別是電腦內部各元件間與外部裝置間的相互連接關係,其間更可表達輸入/輸出的各種介面,可以明確的圖示表達比較抽象的發明


在步驟方面,當然是以流程表達,由於是電腦相關,將會有許多的Yes/No判斷式,通常複雜一點的系統的流程會很龐大,建議可以下圖的方式來表達,「模組化」一些細節步驟,如圖中的A, B, C, ...等,在於其他圖示來描述,避免在一張圖中表達太複雜又難看的流程!


步驟D以另一張圖示表達!


參考資料:Landis On Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-re-bernard-l-bilski-and-rand-warsaw.html

Ron

2009年8月11日 星期二

方法與裝置(MPEP 806.05(e))

方法與裝置(MPEP 806.05(e))

MPEP 806.05(e) Process and Apparatus for Its Practice
當遇到限制要求(restriction)時,主要是審查委員認為權利範圍中包括了兩個發明,最普遍的現象就是範圍包括了兩個獨立(independent)或是為可分開(distinct)實施的裝置與方法,審查委員將引用MPEP 806.05(e)的規定:方法與裝置實務上顯示為兩個分開的發明,因為(A)方法可以其他不同的裝置實施;(B)裝置可用來實施其他不同的方法,而非僅能應用於權利範圍中的發明上,故此容易被認定為分屬兩個不同技術類別的發明,而被要求限制(estriction requirements between process and apparatus)

[原文]Process and apparatus for its practice can be shown to be distinct inventions, if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand; or (B) that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process.

審查委員通常會再提出些註解:
1.權利範圍包括了方法與裝置
2.方法項可以被其他不同的裝置實施,如...
3.方法可以手動完成,而不用此裝置
4.裝置可以完成其他不同的方法
5.以下理由會造成審查的負擔
.多個發明因為有不同的技術類別,而有不同的前案狀態
.多個發明會因為分歧的專利標的而有不同的前案狀態
.多個發明因為不同的技術類別/次類別,而有不同的檢索技術領域
.一個前案若適用於一個發明,但可能不適用於另一個發明
.多個發明可能有不同的非前案(non-prior art)的101,112第一段的核駁議題



Ron

專利審查高速公路


專利審查高速公路
Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)

在此PPH的規範下,申請人可以在第一申請國的專利局(OFF)已做出至少一個權利範圍可核准的決定後,可提出申請,讓第二申請國的專利局(OSF)能夠快速審理、快速核准相對範圍

美國專利局目前已與澳洲、加拿大、丹麥、歐洲、芬蘭、德國、新加坡、英國、日本、韓國,各專利局的合作關係可以節省很多重複的工作,可以加速專利審查並保障申請人的權益


主要好處是可以節省很多第二個申請國的審查時間,文件說明,若無請求PPH,平均需要25個月的審查時間,如果請求PPH,則平均只要2至3個月,甚至:
核准率比較高!
收到Office Action次數較少!
這點可以想像,因為有些國家審查委員的策略平均下來,是「願意」核准專利的角度來審理,如果第二申請國可以參考此類國家的審查報告(如果已有核准的範圍),相對難以核准的國家則可以提昇核准率!並減少OA次數

以下為USPTO針對日本案的PPH申請表格,可以清楚看到權利範圍對應表



下圖顯示一種實施例:先在澳洲專利局提出申請,之後一年內在美國提出申請,並主張優先權,在澳洲專利局先行審理核准後,可在美國專利局提出PPH請求,即能快速發出核准通知


下圖顯示,先在PCT提出申請,之後提出美國申請案,並主張優先權,PCT指定國先澳洲先行審理核准,之後在美國專利局提出PPH申請,可快速核准專利


下圖顯示,在PCT指定的各國申請案之間,亦可使用PPH加速核准


依照上述各例,可以產出各種實施方式,原則大概就是先行發出核准的國家,可以帶給尚未審理的申請案快速審查的好處,當然,沒有核准範圍,應該也不會有申請人會提出PPH吧!
Ron

2009年8月5日 星期三

這是個很OPEN的計畫-Android


這是個很OPEN的計畫

繼Smart Phone興起,Google也發表用於智慧手機的Android系統,此系統是源自於開放原始碼(open source)的計畫中,所以,所有透過此開放原始碼授權的程式開發的相關程式,也都要符合開放原始碼的規定,也就是要開放原始碼。

在Android計畫中,聲明以下權利:
Contributor License Grants All individual contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to the Android Open Source Project will be required to complete, sign, and submit an Individual Contributor License Grant. The grant can be executed online through the code review tool. The agreement clearly defines the terms under which intellectual property has been contributed to the Android Open Source Project. This license is for your protection as a contributor as well as the protection of the project; it does not change your rights to use your own contributions for any other purpose. For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on the Android Open Source Project, a Corporate Contributor License Grant is available. This version of the Grant allows a corporation to authorize contributions submitted by its designated employees and to grant copyright and patent licenses. Note that a Corporate Contributor License Grant does not remove the need for any developer to sign their own Individual Contributor License Grant as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the Corporate Contributor License Grant. Please note that we based our grants on the ones that the Apache Software Foundation uses, which can be found on its site.

任何基於此計畫而產生的想法、程式碼、文件,都應要簽署「Individual Contributor License Grant」,使得當中產生的發明,或是專利不會相互形成干擾,不僅保護了其他的開發者,同時也保護自己免於其他專利影響,這就是一個典型的開放原始碼的例子。

簽署的範本如:


其中有提及專利權的問題,主要是規範簽署者(在此計畫之下)能同意他人散布軟體,而沒有排他的效果、沒有費用、沒有授權的問題,且專利權不及於製造、銷售、販賣、進出口。

Ron
資料來源:http://source.android.com/license

美國法定發明登記(SIR)

美國法定發明登記(Statutory Invention Registration, SIR)

如果有發明產生,但是又不想申請專利(可能是因為費用、市場考量、產品策略),又擔心有人會去申請類似發明而阻礙自己的產品研發與銷售,就會考慮公開,但不申請專利
想要公開自己的發明,應該有不少方式,包括申請著作權、公開於刊物、網站上,或是有人曾經就寫在某件相關專利之後,但並不提出保護範圍,或是可利用美國法定發明登記的制度,也就是SIR,申請公開但不實際審查

要符合SIR還是有些基本與專利申請案相同的規定,規範於美國專利法第157條
(a)SIR仍要包括有說明書、圖示,但因為沒有審查,所以不需提出專利範圍
(1)SIR的揭露內容仍要符合美國專利法第112條的規定(若不符合,則仍會收到核駁)
(2)符合公開、列印等的規定
(3)放棄獲得專利的權利
(4)繳付公開的費用
如果牴觸上述要求,SIR不會被公開
(b)上述(a)(3)所拋棄的權利是自SIR公開後生效
(c)與(d)條就是一般行政上的規定

[原文]
§157. Statutory invention registration
(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Director is authorized to publish a statutory invention registration containing the specification and drawings of a regularly filed application for a patent without examination if the applicant--

(1)
meets the requirements of section 112 of this title;
(2)
has complied with the requirements for printing, as set forth in regulations of the Director;
(3)
waives the right to receive a patent on the invention within such period as may be prescribed by the Director; and
(4)
pays application, publication, and other processing fees established by the Director.

If an interference is declared with respect to such an application, a statutory invention registration may not be published unless the issue of priority of invention is finally determined in favor of the applicant.

(b)
The waiver under subsection (a)(3) of this section by an applicant shall take effect upon publication of the statutory invention registration.

CFR1.297則規定SIR公開的事宜
(a)USPTO同意SIR請求後,經確認一些請求人的資料後,將會以專利公報的形式公開
類別碼是H,並以「H1」開頭,表示經過專利局註冊公開的案子(SIR),沒有經過實質審查的
(b)每一件SIR案,文中應有以下陳述內容:
A statutory invention registration is not a patent. It has the defensive attributes of a patent but does not have the enforceable attributes of a patent. No article or advertisement or the like may use the term patent, or any term suggestive of a patent, when referring to a statutory invention registration. For more specific information on the rights associated with a statutory invention registration see 35 U.S.C. 157.
說明SIR並非一件專利案,沒有主張的權利,不能在任何文宣上顯示有「patent」的字眼

[原文]
§1.297 Publication of statutory invention registration.
(a)
If the request for a statutory invention registration is approved the statutory invention registration will be published. The statutory invention registration will be mailed to the requester at the correspondence address as provided for in § 1.33(a). A notice of the publication of each statutory invention registration will be published in the Official Gazette.
(b)
Each statutory invention registration published will include a statement relating to the attributes of a statutory invention registration. The statement will read as follows:

A statutory invention registration is not a patent. It has the defensive attributes of a patent but does not have the enforceable attributes of a patent. No article or advertisement or the like may use the term patent, or any term suggestive of a patent, when referring to a statutory invention registration. For more specific information on the rights associated with a statutory invention registration see 35 U.S.C. 157.


但為何發明人要付錢申請SIR呢?應該是要做為USPTO檢索時的資料庫內容,容易作為之後他人的申請案的前案,SIR同樣會被歸類(classified),最為後續案的相關前案(cross-referenced),並因為有法律的規範,有法定公開日期與公報公開,對發明人想要公開的意圖較為有效

另外,MPEP1111有規定,SIR所拋棄的權利及於該案相關後續沒有請求SIR的申請案,包括分割案與其他接續案。如果「相同發明人」提出一個相關後續專利申請案,其中若包括了已經揭露於公開的SIR的「總的(generic)」請求範圍,審查委員可以「double patenting」相同發明為理由提出核駁,且不能以期末拋棄(terminal disclaimer)克服double patenting的核駁理由
SIR申請人不能提出再領證(reissue)來恢復權利。

[原文]
The waiver of patent rights to the subject matter claimed in a statutory invention registration takes effect on publication ( 37 CFR 1.293(c)) and may affect the patentability of claims in related applications without SIR requests, such as divisional or other continuing appli­cations, since the waiver of patent rights is effective for all inventions claimed in the SIR and would effectively waive the right of the inventor to obtain a patent on the invention claimed in the same application or on the same invention claimed in any other application not issued before the publication date of the SIR. If an application containing generic claims is published as a SIR, the waiver in that application applies to any other related applications to the extent that the same invention claimed in the SIR is claimed in the other application. Examiners should apply standards similar to those applied in making "same invention" double patenting determinations to determine whether a waiver by an inventor to claims in a SIR precludes patenting by the same inventor to subject matter in any related application. If the same subject matter is claimed in an application and in a published statutory invention registration naming a common inventor, the claims in the application should be rejected as being precluded by the waiver in the statutory invention registration. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(5). A rejection as being precluded by a waiver in a SIR cannot be overcome by a terminal disclaimer.

The holder of a SIR will not be able to file a reissue application to recapture the rights, including the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the invention, that were waived by the initial publication of the SIR.


CFR 1.296則規定可以撤回SIR的公開請求
只要在USPTO發出SIR公開通之前,可撤回此請求,同時可包括請求退費(退回合理價格),如果是在發出公開通知之後提出撤回,可以請願(petition)的形式提出

[原文]
§1.296 Withdrawal of request for publication of statutory invention registration.

A request for a statutory invention registration, which has been filed, may be withdrawn prior to the date on which the notice of the intent to publish a statutory invention registration issued pursuant to § 1.294(c) by filing a request to withdraw the request for publication of a statutory invention registration. The request to withdraw may also include a request for a refund of any amount paid in excess of the application filing fee and a handling fee of $ 130.00 which will be retained. Any request to withdraw the request for publication of a statutory invention registration filed on or after the date on which the notice of intent to publish issued pursuant to § 1.294(c) must be in the form of a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g).

舉例(H2037):
此案為遭遇核駁後,決定以SIR公開




Ron

2009年8月3日 星期一

日本專利消息

日本專利消息

資料來源:HaraKenzo
1.日本智慧財產權策略總部於六月24日發布2009年促進醫藥科技的智慧財產計畫,包括要確認多能力性幹細胞(pluripotent stem cells)技術、藥劑並其管理方面的可專利範疇,能夠促進相關研發的成長。
在日本,醫藥方面的專利始終限於其產品、設備與其方法,而手術、療法與診斷方法並不能專利。此時頒布的計畫中,則通過若現有的藥品在符合專利新穎性與進步性的要求時,仍能夠被專利,比如改變原有的劑量產生降低邊界效應造成的危險,是可專利的。
當原藥品成份的專利超過20年專利期限後,其他製造商能夠以較便宜與新版本的藥劑進入市場。另外,期待有較低費用的藥品專利研發。

2.日本專利局與匈牙利專利局於8/3/2009起試行專利審查高速公路(PPH)

3.中國專利局決定不發予商標給部份中國公司或是個人所註冊的日本地名,如長野(Nagano), 靜岡(Shizuoka),京都(Kyoto), 奈良(Nara), 廣島(Hiroshima), 香川(Kagawa), 福岡(Fukuoka)與鹿兒島(Kagoshima)

4.日本專利局察覺很多中國與台灣的公司(與日本無關)喜歡申請跟日本地名有關的商標,此舉可能會影響日本的出口產品,所以或許日本專利局介入此類商標申請案時,政府會有更嚴格的審查標準

5.為了避免專利惡霸的訴訟,Sony加入RPX,請參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/non-practicing-entities-npe.html

Ron

Triway Pilot Program

(試行,已於2009年7月結束)

EPO, JPO, USPTO早於去年(2008年)試行三邊領航計畫(Triway Pilot Program
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/linke.cgi?url=/torikumi_e/t_torikumi_e/triway_e.htm
也就是三個專利局之間互相引用審查結果,第一個申請的檢索報告(search result)可用於第二個與第三個申請的審查基礎,可以下圖為例:

第一個申請案為USPTO申請案,隨後才有EPO與JPO的申請案,USPTO於之後做出第一次檢索,根據申請人請求,將此分檢索報告交付JPO與EPO,做出該國的第一次審查意見,此例在JPO還同時引用了EPO與USPTO的檢索報告

當然,符合以上程序需要有一些規格:
申請案必須以USPTO為第一申請案(first filing),再主張「優先權」,提出EPO與JPO第二與第三申請案,而此三個申請案應具有實質可對應的權利範圍,本計畫將試用100個案子

程序上,應符合:
  1. 申請人應以USPTO作為第一個申請國,並請求此三邊領航計畫
  2. 再於4個月內主張優先權,提出EPO與JPO申請案
  3. USPTO於6個月內做出檢索報告,並寄送給申請人
  4. 申請人可以此檢索報告請求加入EPO的三邊領航計畫
  5. EPO則做出延伸檢索報告(Extended European Search Report, EESR)
  6. 申請人再將EESR交給USPTO作為IDS
  7. 申請人於JPO提出加速審查(accelerated examination)
  8. 在加速審查的請求文件中應描述此案為三邊領航計畫(加速審查的理由),並附加USPTO與EESR的報告
  9. 加速審查請求文件中,應載明權利範圍與檢索報告的比對結果
  10. 接著,JPO則做出檢索與審理(第一次OA)
  11. 申請人接著應將JPO的報告副本交至EPO與USPTO,同時還要提出英文翻譯本,包括IDS
  12. 之後USPTO將據以做出深查報告
上述程序中,申請人要做的事與細節還真多,應該會影響到真正有意願的申請人吧!
此計畫已於2009年7月「試行」結束

Ron
參考資料:JPO

美國專利法第371條

美國專利法第371條規範國際申請案(PCT)進入美國國家階段的程序

(a) 接收國際專利局所寄送的國際申請案,包括權利範修正、國際檢索報告(search report)、國際先前審查報告(preliminary examination report);

(b) 如本段(f),進入國家階段的期限規定於PCT 22(1),(2), 39(1)(a)

(c) 申請人應於USPTO提出申請,並且:
(1) 繳費;
(2) 提出國際申請案副本(或是透過國際專利局)、英文翻譯
(3) 修正,包括英文翻譯
(4) 宣誓書
(5) 國際先前審查報告的英文翻譯(如果報告是用非英語寫的)(據此,所以國際申請案進入美國國家階段時,可包括之前的修正,權利範圍無須一致,只要內容有支持即可)

(d) 上述費用、翻譯、宣誓書應要符合要求,國際申請案副本應於進入國家階段時提出,若沒有符合上述要求將會導致拋棄(abandonment),除非是透過專利局主管認同這些不能符合的部份為不可避免的問題,若是修正不符規定,則會導致修正無效

(e) 進入美國國家階段後,除了申請人表達同意外,若有PCT 28, 41(下有註解)的問題,應在期限內不會有任何核准或是拒絕的專利;進入國家階段之後,申請人可提出說明書、權利範圍與圖式的修正

(f) 基於申請人請求,國際申請案符合上述(c)要件後,該案國家階段開始

[原文]§371. National stage: Commencement

(a) Receipt from the International Bureau of copies of international applications with any amendments to the claims, international search reports, and international preliminary examination reports including any annexes thereto may be required in the case of international applications designating or electing the United States.

(b) Subject to subsection (f) of this section, the national stage shall commence with the expiration of the applicable time limit under article 22(1) or (2), or under article 39(1)(a) of the treaty[.]

(c) The applicant shall file in the Patent and Trademark Office—(1) the national fee provided in section 41(a) of this title [35 USC 41(a)]; (2) a copy of the international application, unless not required under subsection (a) of this section or already communicated by the International Bureau, and a translation into the English language of the international application, if it was filed in another language; (3) amendments, if any, to the claims in the international application, made under article 19 of the treaty, unless such amendments have been communicated to the Patent and Trademark Office by the International Bureau, and a translation into the English language if such amendments were made in another language; (4) an oath or declaration of the inventor (or other person authorized under chapter 11 of this title [35 USC § §111 et seq.]) complying with the requirements of section 115 of this title [35 USC 115] and with regulations prescribed for oaths or declarations of applicants; (5) a translation into the English language of any annexes to the international preliminary examination report, if such annexes were made in another language.

(d) The requirements with respect to the national fee referred to in subsection (c)(1), the translation referred to in subsection (c)(2), and the oath or declaration referred to in subsection (c)(4) of this section shall be complied with by the date of the commencement of the national stage or by such later time as may be fixed by the Director. The copy of the international application referred to in subsection (c)(2) shall be submitted by the date of the commencement of the national stage. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be regarded as abandonment of the application by the parties thereof, unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Director that such failure to comply was unavoidable. The payment of a surcharge may be required as a condition of accepting the national fee referred to in subsection (c)(1) or the oath or declaration referred to in subsection (c)(4) of this section if these requirements are not met by the date of the commencement of the national stage. The requirements of subsection (c)(3) of this section shall be complied with by the date of the commencement of the national stage, and failure to do so shall be regarded as a cancellation of the amendments to the claim in the international application made under article 19 of the treaty. The requirement of subsection (c)(5) shall be complied with at such time as may be fixed by the Director and failure to do so shall be regarded as cancellation of the amendments made under article 34(2)(b) of the treaty.

(e) After an international application has entered the national stage, no patent may be granted or refused thereon before the expiration of the applicable time limit under article 28 or article 41 of the treaty, except with the express consent of the applicant. The applicant may present amendments to the specification, claims, and drawings of the application after the national stage has commenced.

(f) At the express request of the applicant, the national stage of processing may be commenced at any time at which the application is in order for such purpose and the applicable requirements of subsection (c) of this section have been complied with.

PCT 28(進入國家階段後,PCT當局會將該申請案的問題同時也提交給指定申請的國家)

Rule 28 Defects Noted by the International Bureau

28.1 Note on Certain Defects

(a) If, in the opinion of the International Bureau, the international application contains any of the defects referred to in Article 14(1)(a)(i), (ii) or (v), the International Bureau shall bring such defects to the attention of the receiving Office. (b) The receiving Office shall, unless it disagrees with the said opinion, proceed as provided in Article 14(1)(b) and Rule 26.

PCT 41(進入國家階段後,PCT當局會一併提供國際檢索報告,指定國家可使用此檢索報告;如果指定國引用全部或部份該國際檢索報告,應退還已繳的檢索費用,比如檢索專利局即為指定國的專利局)

Rule 41 Earlier Search Other than International Search

41.1 Obligation to Use Results; Refund of Fee

If reference has been made in the request, in the form provided for in Rule 4.11, to an international-type search carried out under the conditions set out in Article 15(5) or to a search other than an international or international-type search, the International Searching Authority shall, to the extent possible, use the results of the said search in establishing the international search report on the international application. The International Searching Authority shall refund the search fee, to the extent and under the conditions provided for in the agreement under Article 16(3)(b) or in a communication addressed to and published in the Gazette by the International Bureau, if the international search report could wholly or partly be based on the results of the said search.

Ron