- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記1（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-1.html）
- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記2（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-2.html）
前篇報導：考量AI發明的專利適格性，將AI技術分為三個層次：
(1) data layer（資料層），這是關於用於訓練AI的訓練資料（training data）、測試資料（testing data）與驗證資料（validation data），經完成訓練後建立AI模型，AI模型最後根據輸入資料產生預測結果等的輸出資料。
(2) application layer（應用層）(i.e., software)，這是關於電腦軟體，通過軟體驅動AI系統執行相應的動作、作決定以及產生結果。舉例來說，深度學習模型讓AI搜尋抽象的數據，AI神經網路則是倚賴數學模型執行分析。
(3) system layer（系統層）(i.e., hardware)，這是關於AI系統的硬體，即電腦硬體。
（以下是我講義的片段）
1. Patent Eligibility of AI Data
2. Patent Eligibility of AI Applications
3. Patent Eligibility of AI Systems
順帶一提歐洲AI相關專利適格性：
4. AI Patent Litigation
TW：
US：
（訴訟面對到AI發明專利適格性議題時，被挑戰的不會僅是數學問題(這部分常常應該USPTO就解決了)，而是應用已知AI技術到特定應用上的情況）
（可參考本文下方補充內容）
5. AI Patent Prosecution
（面對(答辯)因為發明是抽象概念不具專利適格性的全面駁回的範例）
補充內容：
MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
A. Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept
The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h).
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
重要!（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中可以具備＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)電腦功能的改善，如DDR案；(ii)技術領域中的技術改良，如Diamond案；(iii)使用在特定機器；(iv)轉換特定物品到另一個狀態；(v)加入已知、常規或習知活動以外的特定限制，使發明有具體應用；(vi)發明具備超過連接法定例外到特定技術環境的有意義的限制。）
- i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
- ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
- iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
- iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
- v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
- vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中"不夠＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)在電腦上應用法定例外(如抽象概念)；(ii)加入已知、常規與習知活動(高度普遍性)；(iii)在法定例外(如抽象概念)加入不重要的額外解決方案(extra-solution activity)；(iv)僅一般地連結法定例外到特定技術環境。）
- i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
- ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
- iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
- iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Ron
