美國專利法第103(b)條

此段規定，主要是講說如果生物科技(biotechnology)方面的專利如果符合102的規定，應可核准，不受103(a)的阻礙

Sec. 103. - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), and upon timely election by the applicant for patent to proceed under this subsection, a biotechnological process using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section shall be considered nonobvious if -

(b)(1)儘管有103(a)進步性的核駁理由，但適時使用此條103(b)，符合以下情況，使用或是基於符合102新穎性規定的生物科技的程序仍會被認為非顯而易見─

(A) claims to the process and the composition of matter are contained in either the same application for patent or in separate applications having the same effective filing date; and
包含於相同申請案(the same application)或是不同申請案但有相同有效申請日(separate application having the same effective filing date)的程序與物質成分申請範圍

(B) the composition of matter, and the process at the time it was invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
在此程序或是物質成分發明當下由同人擁有(owned by the same person)或是有義務讓與給相同人(obligation of assignment to the same person)
在相同日期的申請案或是同人發明案的生物科技，若有新穎性，雖有103(a)的規定，仍可為非顯而易知

(2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1) -

(A) shall also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by that process, or
(B) shall, if such composition of matter is claimed in another patent, be set to expire on the same date as such other patent, notwithstanding section 154.

(b)(2)在(b)(1)的規定下的領證專利應包括使用或是於該程序製作的物質成分，或是若有該物質成分在其他專利的請求範圍，專利期限應於同一天到期

(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ''biotechnological process'' means -

(A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to -
(i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,
(ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or
(iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism;

(B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody; and
(C) a method of using a product produced by a process defined by subparagraph (A) or (B), or a combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(b)(3)上述"biotechnological process"意指
(A)基因改變或是包括單細胞或多細胞的有機體，如(i)(ii)(iii)所述
(B)生產繁殖的程序
(C)由(A)或(B)，或其組合的程序產生的產品的使用方法

Ron

Final Office Action - 實例討論

從美國專利申請號10/461,143可以看到在Final Office Action中有可核准的範圍時, 可以在期限內透過修正(沒有任何爭辯)順利獲取專利

從以下截圖可以知道, 此為Final Office Action的摘要, 其中Claims 16-18,20被核駁, 但Claims 1-15,22則為可核准的項次 (該案經過幾次OA與RCE的修正後到此狀態)


之後, 在期限內提出修正, 如下圖顯示將Claims 16-21刪除


如下表顯示經6.29.2006提出修正後, 7.11.2006即發出核准通知
接下來就是繳費領證


資料來源: USPTO
Ron

Final Office Action - M.P.E.P. 706.07 (b)

THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case

706.07(b) Final Rejection, When Proper on First Action
有時, 第一次Office Action也可能就是最終審查- Final Office Action

當然, 這是不尋常的, 只會發生在特定情況下:
新申請案是一個較早申請案的接續案(CA), 或是替換案(Substitute), 而其中全部的申請專利範圍被視為與較早申請案是一樣的發明, 有一樣的申請專利範圍, 則直接發出Final Office Action

原文:
(A) the new application is a continuing application of, or a substitute for, an earlier application, and
(B) all claims of the new application
(1) are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application, and
(2) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.

但是, 若前申請案因為在答辯時因為產生新事證(new issue)或新事物(new matter)導致最終核駁或是結束爭議程序, 那些產生new issue或是new matter的內容存在後申請案, 後申請案提出後就不適合第一次就發出Final Office Action

原文:
However, it would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuing or substitute application where that application contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection or closing of prosecution but was denied entry because (A) new issues were raised that required further consideration and/or search, or (B) the issue of new matter was raised.

其他:

1. 接續案, 如部份接續案(CIP), 相較於其前申請案, 由於其中有new matter, 不適合第一次就發出Final Office Action
2. 若在CA或是替換案的第一次OA前請求面詢, 通常會同意
3. 同樣在此類的Final OA之後, 仍可接獲Advisory Action
4. 審查委員可以在申請案在未決(pending)狀態下撤回Final OA, 一但被拋棄後就不行撤回
5. 一但申請案或是再審(reexamination)程序中, 申請人無法請求撤回Final OA, 除非審查委員在修正, 答辯中找到可以核准的部份, 審查委員可以撤回Final OA

Ron

Final Office Action - M.P.E.P. 706.07 (a)

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.

當回覆non-Final Office Action (如第一次審查意見)後, 經審查委員判斷未完全或部份克服核駁理由時, 將可能發出第二次審查意見, 通常也就是Final Office Action, 除非另有考量(如提出新證據)而發出第二次non-Final Office Action

MPEP 706.07(a)有敘述:
Under present practice, second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant's amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) (提出IDS的時機) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).

這段提到, 除非審查委員在非由申請人的修正, 也不是基於所提出的IDS所提出引用新證據的核駁理由, 則第二次或是隨後的office action應為Final Office Action, 也就是說:

1. 如果審查委員是針對申請人前次Office Action答辯時的修正所提出的核駁意見, 再次的Office Action, 應為Final Office Action
2. 如果審查委員根據申請人提出的IDS的資料提出核駁意見, 再次的Office Action, 應為Final Office Action
3. 若是在修正, 或是IDS以外所提的新證據, 再次的Office Action, 非為non-Final Office Action

值得一提的是, 上述USPTO發出Final OA或是non-Final OA的原則不僅是在一般申請案中答辯程序中, 也適用於專利無效(再審, reexamination)的程序中判
原文:
Furthermore, a second or any subsequent action on the merits in any application or patent undergoing reexamination proceedings will not be made final if it includes a rejection, on newly cited art, other than information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), of any claim not amended by applicant or patent owner in spite of the fact that other claims may have been amended to require newly cited art. Where information is submitted in a reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, the examiner may NOT make the next Office action relying on that art final unless all instances of the application of such art are necessitated by amendment.

706.07(a)後半段提及在具有相同專利權或是申請權的擁有人的情況下, 無法引用符合102(e)(引用申請日較早的前案)的引證案所提出的103核駁理由, 如果申請人引用此理由答辯時, 且申請專利範圍當下並無修正, 若審查委員在隨後的Office Action提出新證據(因為前次證據因為有相同擁有人而無效)時, 並不能判為Final Office Action
原文:
When applying any 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103 references against the claims of an application ** the examiner should anticipate that a statement averring common ownership at the time the invention was made may disqualify any patent or application applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If such a statement is filed in reply to the 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103 rejection and the claims are not amended, the examiner may not make the next Office action final if a new rejection is made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).

但在另一情況中, 在答辯中說明因為在103(c)規定下簽署的共同研發協定, 當下的引證案為無效時, 若審查委員在隨後的Office Action提出(新的)重複專利(double patenting)的核駁理由, 即使申請人並未修正申請專利範圍(無新證據)時, 此OA可為Final Office Action
原文:
If a reference is disqualified under the joint research agreement provision of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action, which contains the new double patenting rejection, may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant.

Ron

美國專利法第103(a)條 - 補充I

依據美國最高法院的判例 ─ Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966)
根據美國專利法第103(a)條判斷"顯而易知(obviousness)"的核駁理由應依循下列考量：　

1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

專利審查時，避免落入審查委員主觀意識的不客觀判斷理由，依據判例，應提出先前技術，接著根據103(a)建立背景技術以判斷顯而易知的考量應先(1)決定先前技術的範疇與內容；再(2)確認先前技術與請求項的差異；接著(3)解決相關技術的一般技藝者的水平；最後才(4)考量顯而易知或非顯而易知的客觀證據


據此，審查委員即以此方法提出顯而易知的核駁理由
Ron

美國專利法第112條

美國專利法第112條是規定說明書與申請專利範圍的形式與寫作原則
另行參考http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/about-claims-ii.html
§112. Specification

(First Paragraph)
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

專利說明書應包括發明的描述, 如製作或是使用該發明的方式, 內容需完整（確實揭露）, 清楚（使熟悉技術的人可以明瞭）, 簡潔（避免冗句）, 用正確的用語（使用該領域常用的名詞）, 讓該領域的技術人員可以據以實施, 並提出最佳實施態樣（best mode）

112第一段是最常用於核駁說明書寫作瑕疵

此第一段所規範的主要是指說明書須充分揭露, 並提出發明當下的best mode, 此點常被發明人忽略, 以為畫幾張示意圖就可以, 其實, 依照規定是要誠實揭露發明當時"最佳方式"(非第二), 且能使該領域技術人員可以據以實施的樣態, 若有違反best mode揭露的規定, 將可能導致專利權無法主張（unenforceable）, 此嚴重性通常不會在申請,答辯時看到

(Second Paragraph)
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

說明書應總結於特別指出與明確主張申請人所欲請求該發明的專利範圍

112第二段是最常用於核駁Claim寫作瑕疵
比如Claim規範不合理的依附關係, 標的錯誤等

核駁實例如下, 此例是遇到請求項元件主體與部件(workpiece)混淆, 造成範圍無法清楚界定的問題

(Third Paragraph)
A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form.

申請專利範圍可以獨立項, 附屬項, 多項附屬項寫作

(Fourth Paragraph)
Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

附屬項範圍應參考所依附的前項範圍, 並進一步限制專利標的, 即加上所依附項次的所有限制

(Fifth Paragraph)
A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.

此段規範多項附屬項, 不能成為其他多項附屬項的依附項

(Sixth Paragraph)
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

申請專利範圍的元件可以手段功能用語或是步驟功能用語撰寫, 並描述執行的功能而不用述及結構, 材料或是其他動作, 此類範圍解釋應包括說明書中對應的結構, 材料或是動作, 與其均等範圍

在此規定了手段功能用語或是步驟功能用語格式的請求項範圍的解釋, 若要以此格式撰寫, 說明書應要充份揭露各種實施例, 免得解釋時不夠完整

Ron

About claims X - 37 CFR 1.75

37 CFR §1.75 有一些有關Claim(s) 的寫作規定，我嘗試翻譯與說明

a)The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
這是規範說明書要能終結於申請專利範圍，範圍則能清楚指出申請人所欲關注的發明或發現
當然主要是要求說明能具體且確實地揭露發明內容，並且Claim能忠實反應該發明

(b)More than one claim may be presented provided they differ substantially from each other and are not unduly multiplied.
這是規範申請專利範圍，可以包括一個以上的範圍，各範圍間要有實質上的差異，數量不要無限度地多
主要是說申請專利範圍可以多項，並且各項的實質範圍不能重複，數量來說，只要符合上述彼此之間不要重複的原則，應該沒有限制，100項以上的美國專利不會少，台灣是不合理地沒有限制項次，各國通常都有一定數量的限制，超過的都會增加費用，這不僅可以限制權利無理擴張，也可以確保審查品質，審查中可以充分考慮各項範圍

(c)One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim ("multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered.
這是規範可以有多個附屬項與多項附屬項(multiple dependent claim)，並依附於前項範圍，可以多項附屬項呈現，但多項附屬項之間不能相互依附，多項附屬項的解釋是以實際依附狀況而定，費用也是以各實際分別的附屬項來看待，甚至比分開的附屬項更多
一般並不建議使用多項附屬項，因為除了有些情況可以幫助解讀範圍，事實上並無實際意義，美國、台灣在這些規定還算清楚、合理，但是歐洲的一些主要國家在申請專利範圍則是可以無限度地使用多項附屬項，甚至可以依附該項前的所有每一個範圍，如使用"depending on any of preceding claims..."，我曾問過代理人，如果因為這樣的依附會產生邏輯上的問題，或是不合理依附，甚至產生說明書沒有的態樣怎麼辦? 我得到的答案是，解釋範圍時會自動排除 （這點待確認）

(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)
申請專利範圍應該是與發明符合，並能與說明書內容相互清楚地支撐，有前述基礎(antecedent basis)，範圍的解釋應要參考說明書內容
主要是要求說明書與申請專利範圍彼此支持的原則

(2)See § 1.141 to 1.146 as to claiming different inventions in one application.
此段是交代§ 1.141 to 1.146規定單一性的問題

(e)Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:

(1)A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2)a phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and
(3)those elements, steps and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.

這裡規範"兩段式"申請專利範圍獨立項的結構，前言包括習知技術的元件，轉接詞可用"wherein the improvement comprises"，接著主體部分則是揭露該發明的特徵，包括改良的部分，新的部分等
另一種轉接詞的寫法是"characterized in that..."

(f)If there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.
申請專利範圍獨立項應以阿拉伯數字循序標示

(g)The least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.
限制最少的為一獨立項，標示1，其附屬項應該群組化，與另一獨立項與其附屬項區分
實務上，附屬項向前依附，要依附最近的附屬項或主要項，不要跳過一個獨立項而去依附更前的項次

(h)The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material.
這裡只是說送件的文件中，申請專利範圍應以分開的頁面撰寫

(i)Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. (updated 9.15.2010 line indentation：縮排)
這裡是建議各項中的各元件以分行的方式撰寫，要斷句、縮排，以方便閱讀
實務上，各項中的各元件與其說明可以分號(;)區分，有些案子就沒有斷句，還是可以清楚表達，各元件斷行是一般做法就是了

Ron

美國專利法第103(a)條

原文：
Sec. 103. - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

103(a)指的就是一般進步性原則，雖然與符合102規定的引證案的技術特徵沒有完全一樣，就整體來說(as a whole)，如果其差異在發明當下為該發明領域之一般技藝者認為是顯而易知(obvious)，則不能給予專利。另外說明，雖有上述差異被認為顯而易知的可能，但是其專利性不能只因為如此而否定掉，比如要排除"後見之明"的可能主觀因素。

上述有意思就是符合102各條的前案都可作為103(a)的核駁依據，美國專利審查沒有所謂適用擬制新穎性的案子(申請在前公開在後的前申請案)不能用於核駁進步性的依據。

如果特定Claim依據103(a)的理由提出核駁，表示引證案與申請案的技術特徵並非完全一致，只是其中差異被認定為顯而易知，可能會有以下核駁說辭：

1. 根據發明實現時的技術水平，差異是一般技術手段或是由相關領域一般技藝者能輕易達成，或是
2. 雖然之前KSR的判例(希望有空可以探討)讓審查委員有更多主觀認定的核駁空間，但通常仍會提出另一或多個引證案，逐一對照申請案的各Claim元件，以證明此差異為簡單達成，或是
3. 說明主要引證案或許可能沒有揭露其中幾個元件特徵，但這些則由另一引證案教導(teaching)，或是經結合主要引證案為顯而易知
4. 整體觀之(沒有逐項對應)，認為該申請案之技術特徵為相關領域一般技藝者能輕易達成
   

根據103(a)的核駁理由實例如下：


針對多個引證案與逐項Claim元件的比對，事務所可以提供比對表，以清楚比對所對應引證案的內容，有時元件對應並非合理，尤其是非相關領域的引證案，答辯方向則建議證明該申請案的技術特徵並非各引證案的結合可以輕易達成：


這案例是用多個引證案結合的核駁理由，這類核駁是因為審查委員認為該發明為組合發明，並且核駁意志堅定，答辯困難


Ron

美國專利法第102(g)條

102(g)所規定的為一般新穎性原則，是除了有其他人已經完成發明之外，還要公開揭露，並無拋棄或是隱藏的事情，其中共有兩段：

原文：
§102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(g)(1)
during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 [35 USC 135，專利審查中的爭議] or section 291 [35 USC 291，專利權人間的民事訴訟], another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104 [35 USC 104，有關發生在美國境外的發明], that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed,

(g)(1)專利申請人在發明之前，於專利法135或 291中所規範的干擾期間內，並在專利法104條的允許之下，若有其他發明人有並未拋棄、隱匿的相同發明時，本發明不能准予專利

102(g)(2)
before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

(g)(2)在發明之前，在本國(美國)之外有其他發明人有未拋棄或是隱匿的相同發明時，該發明的優先順序的考量並不只有在概念與付諸實現的日期，也要考量他人先有構想但晚付諸實現的努力。


若要引用美國專利法第102(g)條的規定核駁一件申請案，通常要考量在申請人完成發明之前的其他發明有：

1. 形成明確的概念(conception)
2. 真正付諸實現(reduction to practice)，並能工作於意欲的目的
3. 積極地付諸實現，也就是要提出申請，所以審查意見中，常引用之前專利或專利公開案
4. 要付出努力(diligence)

Ron

美國專利法第104條

§104. Invention made abroad

一般情況，大約了解一些美國專利法第101,102,103,119,120條就差不多了，其實有些也是值得探討的，就如美國專利法第104條所規範，專利審理期間有些證據或是參考資料就受到一些協議的限制！美國專利法第104條規範了"國外"的發明活動(Invention made abroad)

(重點摘錄)
原文：
(1)Proceedings. In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365 of this title [35 USC § §119 and 365].

(1)有關審理(Proceedings)─除了在專利法119條(優先權)或是365條(引有母案申請日優勢的後續案)所規範的情況，北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)國家或世界貿易組織(WTO)成員國以外，在USPTO、法院與專責機關的審理期間，申請人、專利權人並不能提出該發明在其他地方已被知曉或是使用的日期

原文：
(3)Use of information. To the extent that any information in a NAFTA country or a WTO member country concerning knowledge, use, or other activity relevant to proving or disproving a date of invention has not been made available for use in a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, a court, or any other competent authority to the same extent as such information could be made available in the United States, the Director, court, or such other authority shall draw appropriate inferences, or take other action permitted by statute, rule, or regulation, in favor of the party that requested the information in the proceeding.

(3)有關資訊之使用－若在USPTO、法院或是其他專責機關的審理程序中，NAFTA成員國家或WTO成員國未能提供可造成同意或是不同意該發明日期的知識、使用或其他活動時，則其長官、法院或專責機關應在規定許可範圍內，導出適當之結論或採取其他可使行動，使有利於審理繼續進行

Ron

procedure for inbound case

This figure shows a standard procedure for inbound case from foreign patent agents or foreign clients, mostly they require to deliver the Taiwan PTO (TIPO), or China PTO (SIPO).

click it to enlarge.

1. When we receive the case (with the required documents for filing date), we will send a confirmation to the client including foreign patent agent and foreign client (company or personal).
   
2. If it is urgent case, we deliver it to Taiwan PTO to get an earier filing date as soon as possible using foreign-language version if it has no Chinese version.  Before deadline (for example, 2 months), we prepare the high-quality translation to Taiwan PTO.
   
3. Full-time procedure controller will take care of every step of that.
   
4. We are special to China market and provide higher quality of translation and case control since we have great benefit to the experience of patent task.
   

Ron

outbound procedure for domestic case

Outbound case in domestic patent firm has its standard delivering procedure, this figure shows the standard procedure:

click it to enlarge.

1. When we receive a notice of new case from a client, we will require brief/detailed disclosure from them under secret agreement, and make an appointment for discussing the invention.
   
2. At least two people from our firm will take care of the case, one is the agent in charge of patent procedure and relevant matter, another one will be patent engineer who is a specialist in the technical field.
3. In most cases, we provide a preliminary search or study depending on the client's demand.
4. During the interview with the inventor, we try to get over the whole idea from the inventor, and even draft the major claim on the moment, in order to make sure of our understanding.
5. Then we will complete the first draft before the required deadline.  We provide several steps for revision internally - including assistents and director, and send to the client.
6. After confirming the claims and specification with the client, we deliver it the PTO.
7. Then we prepare the translations of foreign languages for applying to other countries.

Ron

37 CFR 1.121 - 圖式修正

37CFR1.121有規範一些說明書修正的事項，包括申請人提出的修正與經過Office Action後的修正

其中(d)項規範了圖式的修正：

1. 圖示的修正就用取代的圖示代表原來的圖示，並標示Replacement Sheet，如果僅是修正一張圖或是少數的圖，仍要將全部的圖一併附上，實務上，如果是委託美國代理人，台灣的事務所通常只是附帶修正的圖，之後由代理人處理。
2. 如果有新增圖示，則標示new。
3. 所有修正要在arguments或是remarks中有詳細的說明

其他注意事項有：
針對加圖(marked-up)的情況，必要時要附加一張註解(annotation sheet)
有改圖，多半說明書或申請專利範圍也要修改，以免有不一致的情況
改圖不能有new matter，不能超出原說明書範圍

這裡貼上一個圖示修正實例，可看到replacement sheet的字眼：


Ron

37 CFR 1.121 - 申請專利範圍修正

37CFR1.121有規範一些說明書修正的事項，包括申請人提出的修正與經過Office Action後的修正

其中(c)項規範了申請專利範圍的修正，包括對已有的Claim修正、刪除，或是加入新的Claim，並善用所謂的identifier: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), 與 (Not entered)等，整理有以下重點：

申請專利範圍應以連續條列式表達

1. 如果有連續刪除的項次，或是不變的項次，可以一句話表達，如Claims 1-5 (canceled)，就不用每項都列出
2. 若當次有修正的部分，當於該項前面加上currently amended
3. 若有加入字句，則以下底線表示
4. 刪除的部分以刪除線表示，字元較少的刪除部分可以雙中括號表示 [[ ]]
5. 整項刪除，或不該出現，標示canceled或not entered
6. 如果要修正暫時撤回(withdrawn)的項次，標示withdrawn -- currently amended
7. 針對當次並未修正的項次，可標示有original(從未修正), withdrawn(撤回), previously presented(前次修正留下的，當次並未修正)等
8. 當次新增的申請專利範圍，當標示new，並新增項次，該項不需要標示下底線
9. 若想要恢復之前刪除的項次，視為新增，以新的項次號碼，並標記new

列舉一例：


Ron

37 CFR 1.121 - 說明書修正

37CFR1.121有規範一些說明書修正的事項，包括申請人提出的修正與經過Office Action後的修正

其中(b)項規範了說明書內文的修正(Claim以外)，整理有以下重點：

修正應提出：

1. 應清楚指出修正的位置
2. 針對前一版內容標記修正的情形，包括刪除(刪除線)、插入內容(下底線)
3. 如果要刪除較少的字元，可用雙中括號[[ ]]
4. 如果是針對一大段修正，可以用省略符號代表，如"..."

舉例來說，修正前說明修正的段落，之後用類似追蹤修訂的方式標記：


另一例：

Ron

Kind Codes (類別碼)

從USPTO官方文件可知，自2001年1月2日開始，USPTO採用WIPO的標準碼(ST.16)，也就是在每個公開的專利文件上標上Kind Codes，用來分辨各種專利文件類型，比如以發明案公開、核准專利、植物專利/申請案、設計專利，另可表示第一次公開、第二次公開或是修正過的公開案等，現行的Kind Code列表如下，經過此次檢閱，發現，原來美國專利局都是定時在每個星期四公開案子，並非是每天執行：

第一表是舊的2001年1月2日前的


第二表才是現行的，其中
A1是有早期公開的案子(核准前)
A2是有"再公開"的案子，申請人可於修改已申請的說明書後(比如重新撰寫說明書)，要求再公開
A9是經更正後的公開案，經過校正過的公開案，可能是USPTO主動要求的修正
B1是沒有早期公開即核准的案子
B2是有早期公開過的專利核准案
C1,2,3是經過"再審(reexamination)"的案子，號碼會跟著B1,B2而變動
E是再領證案，但是沒有任何改變
H是經過專利局註冊公開的案子(SIR)，沒有經過實質審查的
P結尾的為植物專利的各種狀態
S代表設計專利


每個專利號都由三個部分組成，如以下例子：
US 2003/1234567 A1
前兩碼是國碼(country code)，中間的數字為公開號序號/專利序號(patent or publication number)，最後即為ST.16 Kind Code


另外，從USPTO文件中的例子：
"US 7,654,321 B1"就是美國核准專利第7,654,321號，類別碼B1表示此案核准前並無先前公開的情形
"US 2003/1234567 A1"是美國專利早期公開(A1)第2003/1234567號，並可清楚知道此案公開於西元2003年

資料來源：USPTO.gov
Ron

Claim Chart

申請專利範圍圖表(Claim Chart)
網路上有不少Claim Chart Generator，很簡單地將Claim的元件分別出來，並製作於表格中
主要目的是能將claim透過清楚的表格解構出專利範圍
若用於侵權比對，則可透過清楚的表格比對可能侵權的產品特徵
如下表所示，就是很標準的Claim Chart，包括有兩列，左邊為特定專利的Claim解構，右邊可為要比對產品的特徵，並可列出比對結果，Yes或是No
另外，亦可以用作舉發的表格，右邊的欄位就是用引證案對應到Claim元件的特徵


Claim Chart可以困難到一個一個Claim元件的斟酌，或是將元件的連接關係也視為一個元件，或是特定部件(workpiece)也可獨立成為一個比對的標的元件
但是Claim Chart也可以簡單到用軟體自動產生，比如以下這個網站：
http://www.pattools.com/claimchart.html

Ron

文獻處理實驗室

很驚訝, 在Linux雜誌中看到個開放原始碼的中文古字資料庫的介紹，趕緊去看看

在中央研究院http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~cdp/網頁上可以自由下載
很特別的是，這是外國人看到很稀奇的中國字
連我也覺得十分有趣，還開放原始碼...
by http://www.linux-magazine.com/

中文甲骨文

中研院楚系簡帛文字

北師大說文小篆

還有一些字畫欣賞

Ron

年費/維持費有沒有付？

專利權有沒有效？先別急著看有沒有新穎性、進步性，最好先確認專利權是否過期，專利維持費有沒有付就是個參考！

USPTO網頁中https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do可以讓人查詢專利權維持費的現狀：



一定要輸入申請號與專利號


這個例子顯示此專利案已經因為維持費付到2002年，目前已過期



提醒一下，其實過期的US專利是有可能恢復(recovery)，只要提出非故意或是有不可抗拒的原因，都可以再付錢恢復，只不過，如果專利權失效這些日子發生的可能侵權都不算！
Ron

Assignment Search

看到一個專利權卡在前面，想要獲得授權，要找誰？
當然是找專利權人，但是專利權人是可能因為交易而轉換，包括授權、轉讓給別的公司，甚至因為公司倒閉將專利權"拍賣"給銀行！當然當中有許多我怎麼也不懂的商業問題！
對美國專利來說，USPTO有提供查詢目前專利擁有人是誰的功能，在Patent Electronic Business Center上有以下連結：

或是找到public PAIR的相關頁上也會有以下連結(Search Patent Assignments)：


點入File Assignments of Ownership，會有以下搜尋頁，將知道的訊息填入會有顯示相關結果：



結果如下，可以看到特定專利案的轉讓歷史，找到最新的專利權人：

Ron

專利就是競爭力！

這標題是套用坊間一本蠻有名的書
一般來說，從專利申請案就可以知道國家競爭力
這也應該是個公認的標準之一
就像一個公司專利量或是品質都可以成為估價的標的

此圖顯示2000年與2006年申請WIPO的各國PTO的量，發現申請人確實也是愈來愈重視"世界專利"這塊，以美國來看，2006年就比2000年多，當然日本的申請量雖有下滑，卻也是屬一屬二的！



以這張趨勢圖來看，可以看到幾年前的趨勢，也可以看到紅圈框起來的歐盟、中國、南韓都有很大的漲勢，甚至也反映到這些國家的競爭力！


這張表主要是反映世界的WIPO申請趨勢，是逐年上升，表示上圖的增長趨勢才有意義


2000年的WIPO專利"核准"量分配圖，日本獨占鰲頭！


2006年的WIPO專利核准的比例分配圖，日本仍是大宗


台灣不是PCT的會員國，自然在WIPO專利申請案中不會有任何影子，也反映不出來，但是專利就是競爭力，看來算是有根據的！
Ron

美國專利法第102(f)條

美國專利法第102(f)條
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

如果不是申請人/發明人自己的發明，不能獲得專利。

再參考：
台灣專利法第七條的規定：專利申請權及專利權歸屬於雇用人或出資人者，發明人或創作人享有姓名表示權
另在損害賠償相關的規定：發明人之姓名表示權受侵害時，得請求表示發明人之姓名或為其他回復名譽之必要處分

顯然，美國專利法因為發明人不確實是給予更嚴格的專利權無效的處分！
針對發明人如何確認的問題，有時還真的是一件困難的事，可參考M.P.E.P.2137.01中的規定：

2137.01 Inventorship
The requirement that the applicant for a patent be the inventor is a characteristic of U.S. patent law not generally shared by other countries. Consequently, foreign applicants may misunderstand U.S. law regarding naming of the actual inventors causing an error in the
inventorship of a U.S. application that may claim priority to a previous foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119. A request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) is required to correct any error in naming the inventors in the U.S. application as filed. MPEP § 201.03. Foreign applicants may need to be reminded of the requirement for identity of inventorship between a U.S. application and a 35 U.S.C. 119 priority application. MPEP § 201.13.
這裡是提醒，可能有些國家對發明人的規定不同，USPTO要求進入美國的申請案需要"真正的發明人"，尤其是在有主張優先權的申請案，在申請時，可依據CFR1.48(a)進行修正。

If a determination is made that the inventive entity named in a U.S. application is not correct, such as when a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) is not granted or is not entered for technical reasons, but the admission therein regarding the error in inventorship is uncontroverted, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) should be made.
如果申請後得知發明人不正確，且又不符CFR 1.48(a)的規定，無法修正，則會遭受102(f)的核駁

上述有關37 CFR 1.48(a)的規定Amendment of the inventorship requires:
在沒有欺騙的前提下，可以

1. A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
2. A statement from each person being added as an inventor and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;
3. An oath or declaration by the actual inventor or inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by § § 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47;
4. The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and
5. If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).

補充，MPEP在Inventorship的定義有以下規定：

1. EXECUTORS OF OATH OR DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.63 ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE INVENTORS
   申請後，USPTO會假設寫在宣誓書中的人就是發明人，並且若一個申請案之後專利權不會被分割，也不會去推就什麼請求項或是元件是哪一個發明人
   
   
2. AN INVENTOR MUST CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONCEPTION OF THE INVENTION
   發明人應該就是有貢獻概念的人，依照定義，只是讓發明付諸實現的人不是發明人
   
   
3. AS LONG AS THE INVENTOR MAINTAINS INTELLECTUAL DOMINATION OVER MAKING THE INVENTION, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND MATERIALS MAY BE ADOPTED FROM OTHERS
   發明人是發明、提供構想的人，他應該是在過程中決定使用什麼方法、材料的人，直到成功
   
   
4. THE INVENTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE INVENTION TO PRACTICE
   發明人並非只是付諸實現(reduction to practice)的人，尤其在team work中，發明人是指提供指導與方向的人
   
   
5. REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT INVENTORSHIP
   針對一個發明案來說，一個Claim應該有一個發明人，除了只有一個發明人完成所有Claims之外，很有可能是協同作業(collaboration)，有共同發明人，同樣，其中每個發明人須對此發明概念有貢獻
   
   
6. INVENTORSHIP IS GENERALLY "TO ANOTHER" WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITIES WITH AT LEAST ONE INVENTOR IN COMMON
   通常，在前的申請案會成為在後申請案的"前案"，除非是前後案有至少一位共同發明人，比如：後申請案有主張前申請案的益處，是符合35 U.S.C.120的後續案，便不能用102(e)核駁；前後案為同一個人所擁有，或簽署共同研究的合約
   
   

Ron

打包下載

在http://www.sipo.gov.cn/找到"高級檢索"可以針對各種欄位檢索，當然也有無法全文檢索的可惜

針對特定案子找到申請號或是公開號之後，可以利用打包下載將整份說明書下載，之前下載之後還是一頁一頁的散頁，看起來很煩，現在就會打包成一個PDF檔案，不錯！
http://www.drugfuture.com/cnpat/cn_patent.asp


之後會產生這個畫面：

最後打包！


Ron

WIPO & PCT

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)是聯合國(United Nations)專利的代理機構，台灣自然不是其中的會員。1967年成立，總部定於瑞士日內瓦，它提供國際專利登錄的系統，其中最重要的就是PCT(Patent Cooperation Treaty)，目的是受理會員國的發明申請案，並提供檢索的平台，此協同中有以下基本的規定：

(1)

Applications for the protection of inventions in any of the Contracting States may be filed as international applications under this Treaty.

(2) An international application shall contain, as specified in this Treaty and the Regulations, a request, a description, one or more claims, one or more drawings (where required), and an abstract.

(3) The abstract merely serves the purpose of technical information and cannot be taken into account for any other purpose, particularly not for the purpose of interpreting the scope of the protection sought.

(4) The international application shall:

(i) be in a prescribed language;

(ii) comply with the prescribed physical requirements;

(iii) comply with the prescribed requirement of unity of invention;

(iv)		be subject to the payment of the prescribed fees.

PCT提供申請WIPO後或是優先權日後18個月的國際公開，並提供國際檢索，一直強調是"國際"，主要是會員涵蓋大多數世界的主要國家，各國皆承認PCT的優先權日，連不是會員的台灣亦須承認PCT優先權日，還好，PCT的申請案也承認台灣的優先權日！

我個人認為，最有用的就是由PCT進入國家階段(national phase)時，多數國家可以承認30個月的優先權期限，有兩年半的時間可以思考是否進入特定國家階段，有些不能適用的會員國至少也可有20個月的優先權期限，或是於申請後19個月前請求international preliminary examination後，也有30個月的優先權期限。

使用WIPO，通常是去http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/下關鍵字或是專利號進行檢索，其中包括1978年來的專利申請案

得到一件案子時，有很豐富的相關訊息，包括專利文件與基本資訊，此例中可清楚看到專利申請PCT後，會有個PCT申請號，此例是PCT/DE2000/002241，表示申請PCT的同時，指定國是德國，公開後，則會有個世界專利公開號，此例是WO/2001/008452


Ron

美國專利法第102(e)條

美國專利法第102(e)條
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b) [35 USC 122(b)], by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) [35 USC 351(a)] shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

（updated 1.21.2010）這是一般在比"申請日"的新穎性規定。一件美國申請案的發明若在其他申請在前且描述相同發明的申請案已被公開；或是先前申請案被核准，此申請案無法授予專利。
也就是說，如果在美國申請日比本發明早的話，或許該案公開日並未早於該發明，仍可能因為102(e)的規定而被核駁，亦能用於103進步性的核駁理由！

上述的35 USC 351(a)所提的協定是指1970年完成的Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
102(e)主要是說，在美國公開或是核准案的"申請日"比本發明早，則本發明不得獲准專利，其中如果引證案為PCT的前申請案，若要引用102(e)，需要指定美國國家階段，並以英文公開(優先權日後18個月早期公開)

引用102(e)的核駁理由是引證案的申請日比本發明早，或是該案有美國國內的優先權日，如Provisional Application等. 如果引證案為CIP案(部份接續案), 需要視CIP案與其母案是否有相同的專利技術, 如果CIP案與其母案(比本發明有較早的申請日)沒有有非顯而易見(nonobviousness)的差異時, 可用於引證核駁本發明

從克服核駁理由的角度可以清楚了解102(e)的意義:
特別的是, M.P.E.P.2136.05提出如何克服102(e)的核駁理由, 其中之一就是要提出比引證案"申請日"或是前申請案還早的具體揭露事實(需要宣誓), 包括本發明的國外的優先權案, 或是可支撐發明的美國臨時申請案(provisioanl application)

但值得注意的是, 提出前申請案時要考慮102(b)一年的新穎性懮惠期, 不要最後揭露到連自己申請案因為自己的揭露而失去新穎性

另外, 針對上述引證案的之前申請案為尚未核准/未公開時, 但因為有主張前案的好處(如優先權), 後申請的引證案在符合102(e)的條件下, 審查委員可對本發明發出Provisional Rejection (可翻譯為暫定核駁), 表示此為正式核駁案的權宜之計, 需要視前申請案的狀況而決定是否為符合102(e)的核駁。在M.P.E.P.中提到此種有早申請的前案的引證案, 審查委員在以下情況下可決定提出provisional 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection：
前申請案與後申請案的引證案有相同的專利技術, 有至少一個共同發明人, 或是共同讓渡人,無法引用102(e)的核駁理由

此例是同時被引用102(b), 102(e)核駁

Ron

Small Entity

Small Entity可翻成小實體，相對於Large Entity，USPTO給予專利費用上的優待，大約可減少50%的費用

從USPTO即將於10/2/2008開始新的費用可看到，在申請費、檢索費、審查費、Claim項次的費用，甚至包括將來專利爭議、延展、訴願、領證、年費等幾乎減少一半左右

M.P.E.P.502.02有定義Small Entity，包括small business concern(小企業)、independent inventor(獨立發明人)、non-profit organization(非營利機構)、另一種是Non-inventor on behalf of another(經授權代表發明人的人)等。

於專利申請時可請求小實體的優惠，USPTO暫時不會去檢查是否屬實，在日後主張專利權時，如果在付費上有欺騙，將會導致專利權無效，加上罰款(補費用差額)。

但專利申請權、專利權等權利仍可能遭受轉移而改變大/小實體的狀態，如果原本小實體，經轉移後變成大實體，所以，為避免日後困擾，申請人或是發明人可於變更後告知USPTO，USPTO也v希望申請人/發明人/受讓人在付費時檢查實體狀態(CFR中有相關規定，提醒專利權人要在付費前檢查是否有失去小實體的資格)。

如果專利權行使期間身分變更了，確實應該要適時呈報USPTO，以免因為專利瑕疵而被對手質疑，甚至可能因為有欺騙行為而導致專利權受損。

1. small business concern(小企業)
   500人以下的公司皆可稱為小企業，500人有包括所有聘僱、打工等受薪的員工
2. person(獨立發明人)
   個人發明，或是沒有經過授權或是讓渡給其他非小實體的獨立發明人，即使部分授權至非小實體，仍會被判斷需繳交大實體的費用
3. non-profit organization(非營利機構)
   比如教育單位(M.P.E.P.有不少嚴謹的定義)、非營利的社會組織等

Ron

Open-Source Google Chrome

Google Chrome發表後，得知這是個Open Source的軟體，且由Google發表的言論可證明它也沿用了一些open source的程式，同樣也會公開：

"We owe a great debt to many open source projects, and we're committed to continuing on their path," they wrote. "We've used components from Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, among others -- and in that spirit, we are making all of our code open source as well. We hope to collaborate with the entire community to help drive the web forward."

第一次使用當然是"鮮"

相對於複雜與功能強大與一大堆外掛的Firefox，還有還算美觀又最普及的IE

Chrome是相對簡單的介面，強調安全與更快速下載網頁的特色，還有各tab可獨立分開，不會互相影響等

我覺得還不錯，只不過，連自己的google tool bar都不能安裝，還真是@#!@%!

Ron

如果申請案很久沒有消息？Interview?

（CLOSED）

如果申請案很久沒有消息？可能核准？但應該會通知你！可能被拋棄？一定會通知你！可能被忘在事務所？這一定要問個清楚！可能被審查委員漏掉？這時USPTO給你答案！

First-Action Interview Pilot Program

適用期間：4/28/2008-11/1/2008

我姑且翻譯成 第一次審查意見的面詢領航計畫，主要是針對一些申請很久尚未有OA的案子

原文：

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is initiating a pilot program in which the applicant who complies with certain requirements will receive the results of a prior art search conducted by the examiner, via a condensed Pre-Interview Communication, and then be permitted to conduct an interview with the examiner to discuss the cited prior art references prior to the first Office action on the merits. The requirements for the pilot program are set forth in the notice entitled "First Action Interview Pilot Program" (available below). An interview under this pilot program would advance prosecution of the application because it would enhance the interactions between the applicant and the examiner, provide applicant the opportunity to resolve patentability issues one-on-one with the examiner at the beginning of

the prosecution process, and facilitate possible early allowance. Currently, granting an interview before first action on the merits of a new application is within the discretion of the examiner, who has not yet searched the case, and a showing may be required to justify the granting of the interview. See MPEP § 713.02. The pilot program provides a procedure which, if followed, makes the granting of an interview non-discretionary.

簡單來說，如果申請人符合特定條件，如以下Group I或是Group II，在第一次OA前，會先收到審查員作出的習知技術檢索報告，透過簡要的面詢前溝通，判斷是否允許與審查員面詢，此目的是透過增加申請人與審查員的互動促進爭議案（prosecution）的進行，能使申請人在爭議程序的初期得到專利性的諮詢以提早獲取專利

但問題是，這個面詢的機會是由審查委員在進行檢索前判斷的，但此pilot program仍提供一個可供依詢的程序，讓審查委員能無條件接受

另外，MPEP 713.02另有說明：

MPEP 713.02 Interviews Prior to First Official Action
A request for an interview prior to the first Office action is ordinarily granted in continuing or substitute applications. In all other applications, an interview before the first Office action will not be permitted unless the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application. Thus, the examiner may require that an applicant requesting an interview before the first Office action provide a paper that includes a general statement of the state of the art at the time of the invention, and an identification of no more than three (3) references believed to be the "closest" prior art and an explanation as to how the broadest claim distinguishes over such references.

上述提到一般請求面詢通常是在延續案，但是如果是審查員在第一次OA前提出的面詢，要提供技術的說明，並與引證案間的關係等等！

故本篇節錄到USPTO的訊息是針對一些符合特定條件的案子，USPTO提供以下兩種情況，符合其一，即可請求First Office Action Interview Pilot Program，其實以下可能都是有被延遲到的專利申請案，通常不適用，目前要符合此類的申請案應該很少！所以此計畫仍被審查委員所掌握（申請人可拒絕面詢）。我在其後摘要提示：

Group I: （申請案在9/1/2005以前，且未收到First OA、該申請案被歸類為709類─包括電子計算機、數位處理系統、多緒資料傳輸等、並歸類為2140,2150工作小組）

(1) Filed on or before September 1, 2005, and prior to a first action on the merits;

(2) Classified in Class 709 (Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Multi-Computer Data Transferring); and

(3) Assigned to an art unit in either working group 2140 (group art unit 214x) or 2150 (group art unit 215x).

Group II: （專利申請案在11/1/2006前申請，且未收到First OA、被歸類為707類─包括資料庫、檔案管理或是資料結構等、並被歸類為2160的工作小組中）

(1) Filed on or before November 1, 2006, and prior to a first action on the merits;

(2) Classified in Class 707 (Data Processing: Database and File Management or Data Structures); and

(3) Assigned to an art unit in working group 2160 (group art unit 216x).

其他條件包括：非領證案（non-reissue）、非暫時申請案（non-provisional）、要包括三個或以下獨立項，並總共二十項或以下請求項、不能有多項附屬項、一定要尚未收到第一次Office Action。另外需同意不在pre-interview communication發出後不退費，因為可能在first OA前被認定無專利性。

USPTO提供的First-Action Interview Process程序圖示：

在Pre-Interview Procedures中，審查員會：

1. 依詢目前審查的規則
   
2. 執行習知技術檢索
   
3. 如果有可核准的範圍，將發出pre-interview communication，並提出請求或是拒絕Interview
   

在Pre-Interview Procedures中，申請人應：

1. 依詢目前審查的規則
   
2. 定時回應Pre-interview Communication，並請求不要Interview，或是其出Interview請求，並提出修正或是答辯
   
3. Pre-Interview Communication之後60天內要進行Interview，此期限不能延長，如果沒有定時回應會導致拋棄
   

上述Pre-Interview Communication（面詢前的溝通）的OA範例，範例來自USPTO：

此圖顯示被核駁的狀況

此圖顯示有被核准的狀況（另一範例）

經過Pre-Interview Communication之後，同意後可執行INTERVIEW，主要是幫助審查員能了解Claims，討論所有相關技術與前案教導，並討論如何在習知技術的前提下得到專利。之後可發出Notice of Allowability。INTERVIEW加上結論等的資料可視為First Office Action。

資料來源：USPTO

Ron