2009年1月22日 星期四

韓國將於2009年7月1日實施新法

韓國將於2009年7月1日實施新法,有重大修正,大綱如下:

資料來源:KIPO, Hanyang
  1. 放寬在最終核駁審查之後的權利範圍修正,讓答辯更有彈性:
    (舊法)根據現行的規則,申請人在「最終審查」之後不能如回覆「第一次審查」,或其他非終駁(如有新證據,仍是non-final rejeciton)的審查一樣地修正、新增原說明書支持的權利範圍。
    在現行法規中,針對最終審查意見,申請人僅能允許限縮權利範圍,且不能實質改變原權利範圍,表示只能朝將附屬項依附獨立項的方向修改。
    (新法)新法允許在最終核駁審查之後,修正條件更有彈性,申請人可以限縮、或是實質改變原權利範圍(包括依照原說明書內容修正、擴大範圍)。
  2. 廢除再審的先前訴願階段(pre-appeal):
    (舊法)按照現行的韓國專利法,當專利申請人接獲最終審查意見書,若申請人不服,並無其他選擇,只能提出訴願。
    如果申請人伴隨著訴願通知(notice of appeal)提出修正時,該審查委員應再審(re-examine)該申請案,並判斷是否核准。
    文件顯示,有超過60%的訴願案經此再審pre-appeal階段被核准。
    (新法)新法將再審程序由訴願程序分出來,於接獲「第一次」最終核駁審定時,申請人將可選擇再審(re-examination)或是訴願(appeal)程序。
    當提出再審時,應提出說明書、權利範圍或/與圖式的修正,審查委員將針對此內容決定核准或核駁,此時,申請人將會收到「第二次」最終審定,但此時,並不能再請求「再審」,而只能選擇「訴願」。
    若申請人於「第一次」最終審定之後決定進入「訴願」階段,此時卻不能修訂說明書、權利範圍或圖式,並且不能在訴願決定後再選擇「再審」階段。
  3. 分割案的期限:
    (舊法)在韓國,修正的時間內可發出分割申請案(divisional application),但是進入訴願階段時,並不能提出修正內容。
    (新法)新法則不限制上述分割案的時間點,申請人可於接獲最終審查報告後30天內提出分割案。但此新法適用於2009年7月1日後提出的新申請案的後續程序。
  4. 審查委員針對專利說明書、權利範圍、圖式與摘要的修正:
    (舊法)當說明書、權利範圍、圖式與摘要有非實質影響的錯誤時,審查委員應發出審查意見,並且申請人應提出修正。
    (新法)新法規定如果說明書、權利範圍、圖式與摘要包括明顯的錯誤,並且沒有這些錯誤該申請案可被核准,審查委員應伴隨核准通知(notice of allowance)提出修正,以通知申請人,申請人仍可對此提出反對意見。
    此新法適用於2009年7月1日後發出的核准通知。
  5. 選擇韓文為提出PCT案的公開語言:
    當WIPO接受韓文為其專利公開語言之一時(2007年),此新規定於2009年1月1日開始實施。
  6. 韓國新型專利規定:
    新型專利規定的修正依照上述發明專利的修正。
Ron

2009年1月20日 星期二

History of Software Patents II

1980s
Diamond v. Diehr

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court forced the P.T.O. to change its position. The 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr provided the first instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the P.T.O. to grant a patent on an invention even though computer software was utilized. In that case, the invention related to a method for determining how rubber should be heated in order to be best "cured." The invention utilized a computer to calculate and control the heating times for the rubber. However, the invention (as defined by the claims) included not only the computer program, but also included steps relating to heating rubber, and removing the rubber from the heat. The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable. This was true even though the only new feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer.

在1980年代,Diamond v. Diehr案例中,最高法院強迫專利局改變立場,要求美國專利局「核准」此件電腦軟體的專利。Diamond v. Diehr案是有關判斷塑膠是否要加熱的方法,其中使用了電腦計算與控制加熱時間,該案權利範圍不僅是包括電腦軟體,更包括了加熱的相關步驟。最高法院認為,該發明不僅只有數學演算式,更有塑造塑膠的步驟,應具有專利性。

在Diamond v. Diehr判例之後,雖然仍有判例持不同的意見,但發明人仍應要在申請一個發明案之前判斷是否僅有數學演算式。

Diehr案(US4344142)的主要圖式與主要範圍如下,其顯示以電腦為中心,延伸出各種對塑膠加熱的功能方塊,權利範圍第1項包括利用電腦執行自然對數、計時器、判斷溫度等動作:



資料來源:bitlaw.com
Ron
可接著看http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-i.html

2009年1月19日 星期一

如果找不到發明人簽名怎麼辦?

如果找不到發明人簽名怎麼辦?

美國申請案「如果找不到發明人簽名怎麼辦?」這個問題不見得不會發生,比如美國案不是第一時間的申請國,第一申請國是台灣案,經過翻譯、校稿之後,往往已 經過了一、兩個月,若又恃「優先權」的好處而延遲送件,就更晚了。這個時候,不一定原來發明人已離職或是其他原因而無法簽署「Declaration」, 或是有多位發明人,只要有一個人有這問題,這問題就發生了!

事實上,沒有來得及簽名仍可以送件,並獲得美國申請日,只是之後仍要補上「費用」與「補件」!送件時,在此情況下,「宣誓書」仍要註明以下內容
  • 發明人姓名,註明「non-signing inventor - completed on added page」
  • 居住地
  • 國籍
  • 地址
  • 能簽署的發明人的簽名(Declaration)
實務上,為了要證明該發明人不願或是無法簽署的事實,應須盡到所有通知的義務(diligent effort),應證明已通知該發明人,至少是寄到該發明人「最後」的已知地址,如有收到不能寄達的回函,否則事後會被考驗!如果能附上該發明人的說明,或是口頭說明(包括時間與地點)最好。M.P.E.P. 409.03(d)有規範此說明(statement)的內容。

面對發明人始終「不簽名」、「無法簽名」的問題,可參考37 CFR 1.47(a)所規範「Filing when an inventor refuses to sign or cannot be reached」的內容:
  • (a) 如果共同發明人中的一個發明人拒絕簽署專利申請案,或是找不到人,「其他發明人」仍可代表(on behalf of)該無法簽署的發明人提出申請案。此時送件的宣誓書(oath或declaration)則需連同提出該發明人無法簽署的理由書 (petition),加上相關費用,再加上該發明人「最後」的地址,該發明人仍可在以後補提宣誓書。
  • (b)如果「全部」的發明人都拒絕或是無法簽署宣誓書,而被授權人或是其他可以證明專屬權利的人仍可以以「代理人」的角色提出此發明申請案,此時,仍需附帶上述陳述事實的理由書(petition),同樣應具備發明人「最後」的地址,各發明人仍可於事後補足宣誓書。
  • (c)以上缺漏文件的訊息都會記載於專利公開書中,包括該案的後續案。

[原文]
(a)
If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and the nonsigning inventor. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), and the last known address of the nonsigning inventor. The nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in the
application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63.

(b)
Whenever all of the inventors refuse to execute an application for patent, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom an inventor has assigned or agreed in writing to assign the invention, or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for all the inventors. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, a showing that such action is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties or to prevent irreparable damage, the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), and the last known address of all of the inventors. An inventor may subsequently join in the application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63.
(c)
The Office will send notice of the filing of the application to all inventors who have not joined in the application at the address(es) provided in the petition under this section, and publish notice of the filing of the application in the Official Gazette. The Office may dispense with this notice provision in a continuation or divisional application, if notice regarding the filing of the prior application was given to the nonsigning inventor(s).

以下列舉一例:
此例顯示發明人名稱為Paul Sheppard,但是並未簽署宣誓書,顯示為「NON-SIGNING」,並註明法定代理人為SURREY(CA)


此案在申請日之後一段時間後提出Petition,以下畫面是內容首頁,說明該發明人已經不能再簽名了!


Ron

2009年1月17日 星期六

圖式的核駁範例


曾經看過這樣的圖式核駁,很明顯的問題,這裡只是記錄一下
圖示中沒有標示說明書中有的標號,甚至是缺少判斷流程的Yes/No的方向
都會被異議(objection),沒有修正還是拿不到專利

如果要用圖式表達電路時脈的特性,並不是只是「示意」而已
而是要正確表達彼此的關係,讓本領域技術人員可以明瞭
也曾經遇過圖示中的波形圖比例不正確的核駁理由!
這些都是一些圖式應要注意的事項

當然,如果機構案的圖式,有時還會再複雜一些,主要是要把說明書所描述的特徵都要標示、清楚畫出來

Ron

英文表達的問題

美國專利法第112條第1段規定說明書應以清楚、簡明與正確的用語揭露能使相關領域的人可以據以實施的發明內容,並提出最佳的實施態樣(best mode)

為了讓人瞭解技術,所以說明書內容要清楚讓人瞭解,此例中,審查委員認為說明書內容無法使本發明相關技術領域的人可以據以實施,理由是「翻譯貧乏」,如下擷取的部份OA內容:


因為包含了多個文法、句型結構的錯誤...

英文正確的表達也是一個具有品質的專利說明書應該具備的

Ron

2009年1月16日 星期五

Pandora: open source linux gaming handheld

http://openpandora.org/

這一台神似任天堂的NDS的Pandora遊戲機是以linux為基礎發展的開放原始碼的掌上型"電腦"
講"電腦"就遜掉了, 市面上是已經有些這樣類型, 卻又更美觀的小電腦, Pandora則是遊戲機, 卻也是不折不扣的電腦

配備電腦等級的規格, 比如QWERTY鍵盤, 無線上網, 較大觸控螢幕, 有3D處理能力等, 利用安裝其中的模擬器, 就可以玩很多在其他平台的遊戲

目前裝載於韌體中的作業系統為核心為2.4.26的Linux作業系統, 同樣可以執行X11的視窗作業環境與桌面環境, 還有Firefox瀏覽器, 多媒體播放器等

網路上流傳的照片也就是那幾張, 卻蠻令人期待
不知會不會像之前linux-based的Sharp PDA, 就是讓人尊敬而已


參考資料:
openpandora.com
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7004794073.html
http://pandora.bluwiki.com/

Ron

§1.83 Content of drawing

§1.83 Content of drawing.

37 CFR 1.83規範了專利圖式應有的內容
(a) 非暫時申請案(nonprovisional application,也就是正式申請案,表示暫時申請案的圖式並非需要遵守此規範)的圖式應顯示揭露於權利要求中的發明的每一個特徵,並且,一些在說明書與權利範圍中習知、非該發明主要的特徵,仍需要以圖示符號或是標記描述於圖式中。

另外,除了一些透過國際專利組織(35 USC 371所規範)申請的申請案以外,包含於說明書中的表格或是數學序列並不允許置放於圖式中。

(b)當該發明為舊的機器的改良時,圖式應盡量以一或多個視角顯示所改良的部份,當能足以呈現該發明的情況下,改良的部份應與舊的結構分開(disconnected)。

(c)當非暫時申請案的圖式並不符合上述(a)與(b)的條件時,申請委員應要求在一定期限內(不能低於兩個月)提出額外的描述,但這些修正仍應受37 CFR 1.81(d)的規範(於申請日後所提出的圖式不能用於克服說明書揭露不足而造成無法據以實施的問題,亦不能用於解釋專利範圍)。

[原文]
(a)
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
(b)
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c)
Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).

1.81(d)
Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.

Ron

Commercial Success

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CAFC)最近做出一個使用"商業上成功(Commercial success)"克服核駁理由的""成功判例

首先, 為了使用"商業上成功"作為克服核駁的答辯理由, 申請人提出須提出證明文件, 證明商業上的成功是該發明的直接結果(direct result)

此專利申請案已獲得專利權, 而第三方提出單方面再審查(ex parte reexamination)
在再審的過程中, 審查委員核駁該發明案的所有權利範圍, 之後申請人提出一個證明實施該發明獲得商業上成功的文件, 但審查委員並未認同此理由, 並作出核駁的判決, 接著申請人上訴至訴願及衝突委員會(Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, BPAI), BPAI做出相同的決定, 之後, 申請人繼續上訴至聯邦巡迴上訴法院, 做出以下的結論:

  1. 透過提出商業上成功的證據來克服進步性不足的核駁理由, 此時申請人應證明該發明中特定特徵是造成銷售成功的直接結果
  2. 在此判例中, 申請人僅提供銷售證明, 但非證明該專利為銷售成功的驅動力量(the driving behind the sales )
  3. CAFC同樣維持BPAI的決定, 認為此商業上的成功並不足以克服顯而易見的核駁理由

上述爭議專利為US6,730,333
此描述一種由水果萃取出的營養食品的成份
Ron

2009年1月14日 星期三

引用美國專利法112的核駁案例

112的內容先可參考:
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/09/112.html

核駁一:
在權利範圍中使用一些不確定程度的形容詞,比如快、慢、大、小、高、低,都有可能被認為不明確,如以下審查委員的意見:

也有人認為,熟悉該項技術者可以知道這些有關「尺度」的可能範圍,所以有些是可以經過答辯說明克服的,比如,電子電機領域的人知道特定應用上何者為「高電壓」與「低電壓」,何者為「高功率」與「低功率」;物理人也會知道「高溫超導」的「高」其實還是很低,只是比所謂「低溫超導」還要高而已;化學人也知道何者叫做「反應快」或是「反應慢」。

核駁二:
錯誤使用「/」(slash)符號,如此例「activate/de-activate」,被認為不明確,原因是「/」前後的動作或是名詞應解釋為「其中之一」或是「兩者之組合」(one or both),啟動與關閉無法一起動作,所以使用「activate/de-activate」是不明確的,如下審查委員之意見:

同理,Yes/No的用法也不適合用在權利範圍中,會導致範圍不明確,其他如:on/off, lock/unlock, open/close都不適合,除非前後兩者可擇一運作或是同時運作。

即使有以上不明確的可能,仍可能獲取專利,但是最終仍可能影響侵權判斷的結果,仍會在法庭上產生爭議,所以還是要注意一點。

補充:
中華民國專利侵害鑑定要點規定如下:
解釋申請專利範圍時,「擇一形式」之用語應限定在其所記載之選項。所謂「擇一形式」,係指請求項以「或」、「及」並列記載一群具體技術特徵的選項,其申請專利範圍分別由各個選項予以界定,例如「特徵A、B、C或D」、「由A、B、C及D組成的物質群中選擇的一種物質」等。擇一形式總括之用語中「及/或」之意義為「選擇其中之一或其組合」。

Ron

2009年1月13日 星期二

37 CFR 1.121(c) - Claims的修正(補充版)

之前已經整理過,剛好有人問到Identifier的問題,就再整理一下,主要內容是來自37 CFR 1.121(c)的內容

在美國專利實務的權利要求項修正中,37 CFR 1.121(c)有很明確的規範,因此,美國OA答辯的內容都有一定的格式,而且清楚好讀,尤其是針對各權利範圍狀態的識別符(identifier),更是好用,identifier有七種,包括:
  1. 表示權利範圍不變的(Original)
  2. 目前修正權利範圍的(Currently amended)
  3. 刪除權利範圍的(Canceled)
  4. 之前已經變動過的權利範圍(Previously presented)(包括之前修正、新增的範圍)
  5. 目前新增(New)
  6. 無進入審查(Not entered,當申請人在終駁後新增範圍並不被接受時,申請人於往後的修正使用Not Entered)
  7. 暫時撤回可用(Withdrawn,如經過限制選擇後,未被選擇的範圍可以此表示)
  8. 撤回的項目經過修正,亦可用(Withdrawn-currently amended)

以下是(c)段的內容:
文中規定,如果在答辯過程中要修正權利範圍,除了要刪除的範圍以外,其餘範圍內容應該要全部寫上,曾經有過的範圍項次應該保留,即使是刪除的項目,修正個範圍將取代之前的範圍,每個範圍都應使用識別符標上目前狀態,包括上述的Original, Currently Amended, Canceled, Withdrawn, Previously Presented, New, Not Entered等。

[原文]
(c)
Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).

在答辯過程中,修正的部份包括:

  1. 權利範圍,並保留原來申請時的標號,若有連續的項次被刪除或是未被審查,可標為Claims 1-5 (Canceled)或是Claims 1-5 (Not Entered),權利範圍的修正應與其他部份分開,而以獨立的文件撰寫,應與之前的說明書內容修正與之後的答辯內容分開
  2. 權利範圍的修正應與送件時,或是之前修正過的版本一致,新增的文字內容以「下底線(underlining)」標示,刪除的文字部份應以「刪除線(strike-through)」標示,若有要刪除字元或是較短的字,避免用刪除線時不清楚,應以雙中括號[[...]]標示
  3. 標示這四種識別符「original」,「withdrawn」,「previously presented」,「new」的範圍則是沒有任何標記的「乾淨版」的權利範圍內容

Ron

2009年1月12日 星期一

專利家族檢索-專利貓

專利家族檢索的工具不勝枚舉
免費的很多,但是一旦失去免費的「依據」,就可能也失去功能
可能是因為多半專利家族的判斷是以優先權作為依據,而且多半以美國專利為主
一旦失去這個查詢的基礎,免費就會有點正確性的問題

這裡介紹一個「專利貓」(http://www.patentcat.com/)
覺得十分有用,也是免費的,可以檢索的專利國家不少
至少其中說明可以有(包括範例):
Decription the Patent Seed
US Issued Patents Number US6359159
US Publication Number US2004266083
European Patent EP1204414
Japan Patent: JP-H11-508406 JP11508406
PCT Patent: WO-01-06986 WO0106986
Taiwan Patent TW588441

這是檢索畫面



令人驚豔的是以下這個可以拉來拉去的圖形介面,前後專利的關係也一目了然!
另外也可另開Excel檔案,十分方便


推薦使用!
Ron

Non-Practicing Entities (NPE)

Reduce NPE Risks and Costs

NPE原文是「non-practicing entities」,或可翻譯為非專利實施的實體,另一個名稱是「patent troll」,也就是購入大量專利,透過法律途徑惡意收取授權金,卻並不實施該專利權的公司,這樣的公司在過去十年內有增加的趨勢。

「troll」字典上譯為矛盾的兩個字--侏儒或巨人,在西方傳說中,troll是個出現於北歐的類人生物(humanoid),外型像個怪物,生在地底下,會偷竊、劫持、吃人,奇怪的是,也會像過路人收取過路費

(google)


2008年11月,在美國有間名為RPX的公司成立,該公司宗旨即幫助受到patent troll威脅的公司免於被收取不合理的授權金或和解金,甚至協助購買足夠抵抗patent troll的專利。

RPX同時也會購買關鍵性的專利,協助被patent troll威脅的公司(一旦成為RPX會員之後),至少提供合理的、較低的費用免於被不實施專利的patent troll威脅。

RPX成立之初就是要得到關鍵的專利,初始會員如IBM、cisco等,即協助購入足夠的專利與特定領域的專利,下表顯示RPX目前認為高價值的專利領域

下面的圖則是顯示RPX的策略,初期是購買專利,等到專利量足夠後,之後加入的會員則可引用,當然這些「服務」也是需要代價的,後到的會員顯然仍需要繳出所謂的「back fee」,愈後加入愈貴,其實也挺合理的。


資料來源:
RPX Corp. (http://www.rpxcorp.com/)
SMBiplaw.com

Ron

2009年1月11日 星期日

History of Software Patents I

1960s - 1970s

Gottschalk v. Benson

In the 1970s, the Supreme Court twice examined whether inventions containing computer software were patentable. Both times, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. In the 1972 case of Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court struggled with whether an algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numbers into true binary numbers was considered patentable. The Court felt that a patent on this concept would pre-empt the entire mathematical algorithm. Since mathematics could be considered an abstract idea, and abstract ideas are not patentable, the Supreme Court held that the algorithm in question is not patentable.

1970年代,美國最高法院兩度審查包括電腦軟體的發明是否可被專利,兩次都被否定。1972年的Gottschalk v. Benson案例中,最高法院在利用演算法(Algorithm)轉換十進位位元碼為真實二元數字為可專利的議題上有過掙扎,法院認為以上概念為完全的數學演算法,因為僅是抽象概念,故無法專利

小結,此階段,數學演算的抽象概念無法專利,主要是缺少產業利用性

Parker v. Flook

In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court examined whether a method for updating an alarm limit (used to signal abnormal conditions) in a catalytic conversion process was patentable. The only difference between the prior art and the invention was the algorithm that calculated the new alarm limit. The Court held that this was not patentable even though an additional step was included in the claim beyond merely the calculation step. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that "post-solution activity [alone]... can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process." Specifically, the court held that the invention could not be patented "not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention."

在Parker v. Flook判例中,爭議技術是針對一種判斷是否在催化轉換過程中更新警報範圍(在異常狀態下)的方法(翻譯有點拗口,請原諒),最高法院進行審理時,認為此技術與先前技術僅差於更新警報範圍的演算方式,即使在權利範圍中,具有一些除了數學演算以外的步驟,但仍無法獲准專利。法院明確拒絕了利用所謂「post-solution activity」能將不可專利的東西轉換成可專利的程序,法院進一步說明,此技術「整體來說」不可專利並非是因為它包括了數學演算的元件,而是此演算法已經揭露於先前技術中,利用已經揭露的技術產生其他功效無法專利。

小結,此階段拒絕利用已經揭露於先前技術的「數學方法(軟體程式)」產生其他功能的專利性

資料來源 :bitlaw.com
Ron

2009年1月8日 星期四

MPEP 706.07(f) Time for Reply to Final Rejection

706.07(f) Time for Reply to Final Rejection

MPEP 706.07(f)規範了回覆最終審查意見(Final Office Action)的時機,包括:

(A)每個最終審查意見(FOA)都規定3個月回覆的短期法定期限(shortened statutory period, SSP),其中建議申請人如果在FOA發出之後兩個月內(遇假日順延)提出回覆(reply),此三個月的短期法定期限則會於FOA發出後3個月或是發出諮詢意見(Advisory Action, AA)的日期(mailing date)過期(以兩者較晚的期限為主),故此未經延期的期限會有所變動,但針對FOA的回覆期限總共(加上額外的延期)不能超過FOA發出後的六個月。
[原文]
(A) All final rejections setting a 3-month shortened statutory period (SSP) for reply should contain one of form paragraphs 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.40.02, 7.41, 7.41.03, 7.42.03, 7.42.031, or 7.42.09 advising applicant that if the reply is filed within 2 months of the date of the final Office action, the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later. Thus, a variable reply period will be established. If the last day of "2 months of the date of the final Office action" falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, and a reply is filed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.7(a), the reply is deemed to have been filed within the 2 months period and the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later (see MPEP §710.05). In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the mailing date of the final rejection.

(B)上述根據申請人發出第一次回覆的時間所做出可變動的期限並不適用於短期法定期限(SSP)少於3個月的程序,如期限僅1個月的再領證程序(reissue)或是再審查程序(reexamination)。
[原文]
(B) This procedure of setting a variable reply period in the final rejection dependent on when applicant files a first reply to a final Office action does not apply to situations where a SSP less than 3 months is set, e.g., reissue litigation applications (1-month SSP) or any reexamination proceeding.

I. ADVISORY ACTIONS
I. 此段規範諮詢意見(Advisory Actions)
(C)當申請人在FOA之後兩個月內提出一個完整的回覆(答辯)時,即設定前段(A)所描述的可變動的回覆期限,審查委員必須判斷:
(1)申請案為可核准的狀態;
(2)申請案是除了有審查委員可自行修正的小問題(如拼錯字、用錯動詞、用錯代名詞、錯誤標號等)之外可核准
(3)申請案不可核准,此時,諮詢意見中需通知申請人短期法定期限到期日(FOA發出後三個月內或是AA發出的時間,其中較晚的)
[原文]
(C) Where the final Office action sets a variable reply period as set forth in paragraph (A) above AND applicant files a complete first reply to the final Office action within 2 months of the date of the final Office action, the examiner must determine if the reply:
(1) places the application in condition for allowance - then the application should be processed as an allowance and no extension fees are due;
(2) places the application in condition for allowance except for matters of form which the examiner can change without authorization from applicant, MPEP § 1302.04 - then the application should be amended as required and processed as an allowance and no extension fees are due; or
(3) does not place the application in condition for allowance - then the advisory action should inform applicant that the SSP for reply expires 3 months from the date of the final rejection or as of the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later, by checking box 1.b) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303.

(D)若申請人並未於FOA發出後兩個月內提出完整的答覆,則無上述短期法定期限的問題
[原文]
(D) Where the final Office action sets a variable reply period as set forth in paragraph (A) above, and applicant does NOT file a complete first reply to the final Office action within 2 months, examiners should check box 1.a) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303.

(E)當接到諮詢意見,申請人接下來的作業時間除了有FOA發出後3個月或是AA發出日期(較晚的那個)的限制,仍應於FOA發出後6個月的期限回覆,否則就遭撤銷。
[原文]
(E) When box 1.b) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303 is checked, the time for applicant to take further action (including the calculation of extension fees under 37 CFR 1.136(a)) begins to run 3 months from the date of the final rejection, or from the date of the advisory action, whichever is later. Extension fees cannot be prorated for portions of a month. In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the date of the final rejection.

此段列舉一例:
如果申請人於FOA發出後兩個月內提出完整的回覆內容(答辯),審查委員應FOA發出後三個月內發出諮詢意見,此時短期法定期限則會於FOA發出後3個月到期,仍可有另外3個月的延期。但是,若申請人於FOA發出後兩個月內提出回覆,但是審查委員並未於三個月內發出諮詢意見,則短期法定期限(此例已經超過三個月)改變為諮詢意見發出日期到期,延期費也是從AA發出日期開始計算。


以下為諮詢意見通知的表格:


II. EXAMINER'S AMENDMENTS
II. 此段規範審查委員於接到FOA回覆的修正:
(F)當於FOA發出後兩個月內及時提出一個完整的回覆時,若經審查委員修正而可核准,雖可能已超出FOA發出後三個月之後,但仍不會產生延期費用,但審查委員自行修正時間仍不能超過FOA發出後6個月,否則會被撤銷
[原文]
(F) Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has been filed within2 months of the final Office action, an examiner's amendment to place theapplication in condition for allowance may be made without the payment of extension fees even if the examiner's amendment is made more than 3 months from the date of the final Office action. Note that an examiner's amendment may not be made more than 6 months from the date of the final Office action, as the application would be abandoned at that point by operation of law.

(G)當申請人於FOA發出後兩個月內提出回覆,申請人可於FOA發出後3個月內或是經請求延期授權給審查委員進行修正,然而此時審查委員的修正僅能針對除了一些文法、格式錯誤修正而可核准的情況下進行修正
[原文]
(G) Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has not been filed within 2 months of the final Office action, applicant's authorization to make an amendment to place the application in condition for allowance must be made either within the 3 month shortened statutory period or within an extended period for reply that has been petitioned and paid for by applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, an examiner's amendment correcting only formal matters which are identified for the first time after a reply is made to a final Office action would not require any extension fee, since the reply to the final Office action put the application in condition for allowance except for the correction of formal matters, the correction of which had not yet been required by the examiner.

(H)申請人可提出請求(petition)與延期費,授權給審查委員進行可核准的修正,但不能接受口頭指導完成信用卡付費

其他注意事項:
1.應於法定期限內對FOA做出回覆
2.在短期法定期限之外可請求面詢,不會有多的費用
3.針對格式上修正而可核准的案子不應有延期費用
4.FOA後,爭議程序仍可被再啟動,如提出RCE等

資料來源:USPTO
Ron

2009年1月7日 星期三

近來韓國專利商標局的法規改變

Source: KIM, HONG & ASSOCIATES
資料整理自代理人的文件

  • 改變一:
2008年9月1日起, 韓國專利局針對申請人回覆官方審查意見(Office Action)的時程提出了改變

改變前,
當韓國專利局發出Office Action之後, 申請人應於兩個月內提出回覆(答辯), 依申請期限可延長, ㄧ次一個月, 次數並無限制(只要願意付錢)

改變後,
當韓國專利局發出Office Action之後, 同樣, 申請人應於兩個月內提出回覆, 期限可延長, 但最多四個月, 若須請求延長超過四個月, 應提出書面理由

超過四個月的延長期限, 理由可有:
1. 當委任的專利代理人解散或是在期限過期前一個月內轉代理人, 可提出延期四個月以上
2. 若在到期前一個月內申請人有異動, 可提出四個月以上的延期
3. 當到期前兩個月內接到他國專利局所發出的審查結果, 欲將審查意見反映到修正內容, 再提交專利局時, 可提出四個月以上的延期
4. 當發出Office Action的時間已延遲超過一個月, 在此狀況下僅可提出額外延期一個月
5. 當一個母案或是分割案受到審判時, 可提出超過四個月的延期時間
6. 當需要一段時間去測試或是測量有關Office Action的測試時, 可提出超過四個月的延期

  • 改變二:
有關電子交換服務(Electronic Exchange Service), 2008年9月1日起, 韓國專利局與美國專利局之間的優先權協議有變動

改變前,
當對韓國專利局提出申請案, 且主張優先權, 應於一年內或優先權日後四個月內提出經認證的優先權文件

改變後,
1. 根據巴黎公約主張優先權的申請案提出至韓國專利局時, 更早已有一申請案(優先權案)提出給美國專利局, 申請人不須提出經認證的優先權文件副本
2. 當美國申請案主張一個更早申請的韓國申請案優先權時, 包括發明與新型, 此美國申請案亦不須提出優先權文件副本

  • 改變三:
申請人可選擇審查時間

改變前,
申請案依申請實質審查的順序進行審查, 當有爭議或是已完成實施該發明的準備時, 申請人可請求優先審查

改變後,
申請人可根據專利策略在以下幾種審查順序的選項中選擇其一:
加速審查(expedited examination)
一般審查(general examination), 平均於請求實質審查後16個月內做出決定
延遲審查(delayed examination), 申請人可能因為研發, 商業準備, 市場考量 ...等因素提出延遲審查, 然延遲審查時間仍應於請求實質審查後18個月至申請日後5年內進行選擇

  • 改變四:
為了縮短商標申請的準備時間, 商標申請案的指定商品可使用一般名稱

改變前,
當一商標申請案提出後, 指定商品僅於類似商品間使用一般名稱(範圍較窄)

改變後,
2008年9月16日起, 可使用混合著類似商品與相異商品的綜合名稱(涵蓋範圍較廣)

Ron

2009年1月6日 星期二

TW Patent Examination & Administrative Remedy flow

At http://www.tipo.gov.tw/, TIPO provides many regulative application forms, the following shows the respective files:

From these files we may simply know how many the procedures a patent application may meet.
For a single patent application, it may use:
  1. a form for filing a patent application
  2. a form for applying substantive examination for a patent application
  3. a form for applying earlier publication for a patent application
  4. a form for examining a patent application in priority
  5. a form for filing a utility model application
  6. a form for applying a search report for a utility model application
  7. a form for filing a design patent application
  8. a form for filing a union design patent application
  9. a form for providing supplementary or amendment for a filed application
  10. a form of an assignment for a patent/utility model/design application
  11. a form of an inheritance for an application
  12. a form for applying a re-examination for an application
  13. a form for amending a granted application
  14. a form of an invalidation
  15. a form for examining an invalidation application under a lawsuit in priority
  16. a form for applying an interview
  17. a form for filing a divisional application for a patent application/utility model/design application
  18. a form for transferring a
  19. a form for converting a patent application to a utility model application
  20. a form for converting a utility model application to a patent application
  21. a form for converting a patent application to a design patent application
  22. a form for converting a utility model application to a design patent application
  23. a form for converting a design patent application to a utility model application
  24. a form for converting a design patent application to a union design patent application
  25. a form for converting a union design patent application to a design patent application
  26. a form of assignment registration
  27. a form of inheritance registration
  28. a form of licensing registration
  29. a form of mortgage registration
  30. a form of entrust registration
  31. a form for adding annotation or supplementary on a patent certificate
  32. a form of English translation certificate
  33. a form of applying a priority document
  34. a form for applying review of the file wrappers
  35. a form for applying print of patent document
  36. a form for paying annual fee
  37. a form for receiving a patent certificate and postponing publication
  38. a form for applying a simple process of application by facsimile
  39. a form for applying a simple process of application by email
  40. a form for certifying an application right
following chart shows the flow of TW patent examination and administrative remedy:

wherein, (please follow the numeral indication)
(1) application
(2) formal/procedure examination
(3) examination before publication
(4) first substantive examination
(5) second substantive examination
(6) appeal
(7) first administrative litigation examination
(8) appeal of administrative litigation examination
(9) publication
(10) issue fee, annual fee
(11) issuing patent certificate
(12) invalidation
(13) withdrawal (non-existent from the beginning)
PS1: earlier publication at eighteenth month from application date
PS2: any party can apply substantive examination in three years from the application date

source: TIPO
Ron