2017年8月24日 星期四

美國專利的面詢規定 - MPEP 713

MPEP 713規範美國專利審查期間專利申請人與審查員之間的面詢程序,面詢可以讓雙方對申請中的專利多些理解,申請人/代理人可以透過面詢有效瞭解審查委員對申請案的態度,並讓審查委員可以多些瞭解發明本身,以及發明人的意思。目的都是找到可專利的方向,可以促進專利核准。

一般來說,與審查委員面詢(包括面對面、電話通訊、視訊會議、電子郵件、電子訊息等)的都是專利代理人,因此發明人與專利代理人需要先行溝通,一起面對目前專利申請案的問題。

MPEP 713    INTERVIEWS
Discussions between an applicant and an examiner are often indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application. Generally, interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in an application should be promoted. Properly conducted, an interview can bridge the gap between an examiner and an applicant with regard to the substantive matters at issue in an application. Interviews often help to advance prosecution and identify patentable subject matter. The applicant and the examiner should consider the advantages of conducting an interview to advance the prosecution of a particular patent application. Positions presented during an interview should be advanced with decorum and courtesy. 
An interview should be granted when the nature of the case is such that the interview serves to develop or clarify outstanding issues in an application. Both applicants and examiners should understand that interview time is limited for both, and therefore they should use the interview time efficiently. Both parties should ensure the interview does not extend beyond a reasonable time and minimize interruptions during the interview. Applicants and examiners should facilitate the grouping of interviews where effective.
All discussions between the applicant/practitioner and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. This includes any and all records or communications received in connection with the interview, whether the interview was conducted in-person or through a telephone conversation, video conference, electronic mail, or electronic message system. This policy and other interview tips are detailed in the Interview Best Practices document which is available at www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/interview_ best_ practices.pdf. Where an electronic record is created as part of the interview, e.g., a series of electronic messages, a copy of the electronic record is to be made of record in the application. Where an electronic record is not created a summary of the interview must be made of record.
面詢最佳實務:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/exam/interview_best_practices.pdf

(筆記)

這篇文件分為四大部分,可及性(accessibility)、內容預備(preparation)、實質議題(substance)以及最後記錄(recordation),我用我的理解寫出來,如果有興趣,應以原文為主。

第一是「可觸及實際要討論的議題與相關文件(Accessibility」,例如PAIR系統可以得到審查過程的相關文件與細節,包括經過授權的雙方(審查委員、代理人、發明人、申請人)約定時間,因為面詢雙方都有一致的目標,就是把專利搞懂,以及確認可專利性,因此可以執行有效率的面詢,經過授權的雙方可以在有共識的前提下沒有阻礙地討論。

第二是「充分的事前準備(Preparation)」,"有效"的準備可以促進執行有意義的面詢,代理人/發明人/申請人應事先讓審查委員充分瞭解自己的訴求,包括事先提出的議題、答辯意見與證據,或包括修正專利範圍的版本。對代理人/發明人/申請人而言,應該準備好有關可專利的討論內容,包括可能新增的議題,為何專利可以與先前技術區隔而獲准的新穎性與進步性內容,且應避免過於繁瑣的細節、次要的技術討論,或是沒有意義的發言。希望這個面詢可以讓審查委員有充分理解專利範圍的可專利性。另外,面詢前準備也包括了表格填寫。

第三是「實質議題討論(Substance)」,面詢時自然除了寒暄問暖外,要就專利內容進行實質議題討論,目的是讓審查委員與發明人/申請人討論出可專利標的,而促進專利審查,這裡強調雙方討論並非是敵人的關係。當申請人提出修正,面詢雙方需要辨明其中是否被說明書支持,並且審查委員需要協助申請人瞭解目前先前技術以及可專利的標的,以至於可以合作得到可專利範圍。雙方也應注意不要在面詢中又去提出過去的立場,應該著重於目前可以讓審查更進一步的議題。因此,這份文件建議面詢時可:(1)表明申請專利範圍語言、語意、連接詞與標點符號;(2)念出專利範圍,以明確專利範圍可以被怎麼解釋;(3)以圖式解釋專利範圍中元件以及元件關聯,以判斷出專利範圍。

第四是「將面詢過程作一總結(summary),並記錄(Recordation)」,USPTO要求審查委員要對面詢結果發出一總結作為記錄。注意,沒有寫在總結中的內容不會認知有任何協定、承諾、規定或理解。

PTOL-413


範例(有機會可以討論這些案件細節,大家也可前往PAIR翻閱):
11/642516(專利最後可核准)


12/406714(專利核准,本案發出Interview Summary同時發出修正後的notice of allowance)


14/485699(本案進行過兩次面詢,第一次面詢後審查委員提出可核准方案,但申請人並未依照修改,因此接獲第一次核駁意見,顯然也進行了第二次面詢,接著才提出修正(非依照第一次面詢建議),第二次面詢結果伴隨修正後核准通知)
(第一次)
(第二次)

資料來源:USPTO
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s713.html

Ron

沒有留言: