筆記，這是一個舊新聞。
與一般專利局同時再一次OA中提供實質審查報告與檢索報告不同的是，歐洲專利局在專利實質審查前，檢索部門（search division）會提供一份檢索報告，並作出一份專利性報告（初步審查報告，以及單一性評估，並在各項專利權不符單一性情況下讓申請人決定是否審查尚未被專利性評估的專利範圍（additional search）），而且可能是超過一位審查委員共同作出的檢索報告。
作出這份檢索報告與初步意見時，強制申請人回覆，這時申請人會根據此檢索報告與意見回覆，已經是如同一份正式的OA答辯，之後EPO審查部門（examination division）才會在繳交實際審查費用後繼續審查，並且理論上是依循審查與審查一致性（Conformity Assurance for Search and Examination，CASE）原則。但是申請人卻是在此時才決定是否進入「實質審查程序」，如果查閱前案後覺得專利不容易獲准，或是相關專利已經沒有繼續答辯的價值，就可以省了一筆實質審查費用（以及代理人費用）。
歐洲專利局於2014年7月1日實施「檢索早期確認計畫（Early Certainty from Search，ECfS）」以來，，從英文字面來看，就是希望可以從檢索報告早期確認專利專利性。推行兩年以來，有顯著的影響，根據參考資料來看，已經大量減少積案，這對逐年上升的申請量來看（2014年有274174件），是很有效果的方案。
這個ECfS的目標是：(1)對新的申請案來說，六個月內提出檢索報告，以及可專利性報告；(2)加速審查；(3)對可獲准專利的申請案加速授證。這些目標都是基於一個「較早的審查報告」。另有目標是要加速異議程序（第三方異議/無效，可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/09/opposition.html），歐洲專利局目標是可以將異議程序壓縮到15的月內完成，可參考：http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=12553。
原始新聞：https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2014/20140703.html
ECfS實施一年後的報導：http://blog.epo.org/patents/early-certainty-from-search-one-year-on/
實質成果：
1. 新案的檢索報告與初步意見都於申請日後6個月內提出。
2. 一旦檢索報告反映為正面（可核准機率高），加速核准。
3. PCT進入EPO執行國際檢索報告（International Search reports，ISR）的量實質增加。
（隨意找一些案件來看，確實都有在EP申請日後六個月內提出檢索報告與意見）
範例：EP2985704
EP申請日：29.07.2015
發出檢索報告日：15.01.2016（六個月內）
範例：EP3089455
EP申請日：23.05.2016
發出檢索報告日：31.08.2016（三個月！）
範例：EP3087925
EP申請日：22.04.2016
發出檢索報告日：22.09.2016（五個月）
資料參考：http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=12762
也有人質疑這個六個月提出檢索報告與意見的方案：http://ipkitten.blogspot.tw/2014/07/epo-prioritises-newest-and-oldest-files.html
my two cents:
當提供有效率的專利檢索與審查，以及「品質」，申請量增加是預期的事。當然，也跟國力有關，當歐洲面臨分裂與不穩定，可能會影響到這些成果。
參考規定：
Guidelines for Examination
Search Division
The Search Division is responsible for drafting extended European search reports under Art. 92, including a search opinion pursuant to Rule 62(1), as well as for drafting all of the different types of search report referred to in B‑I, 1, and B‑II, 4. The Search Division is also responsible for issuing a pre-search invitation under Rule 62a(1) (see also B‑VIII, 4) to clarify or where necessary limit the subject-matter to be searched. The issuing of an invitation under Rule 63(1) is also within the responsibility of the Search Division (cf. B‑VIII, 3.1). Furthermore, it draws up a partial search report together with an invitation to pay additional search fees under Rule 64(1) or Rule 164(1) in case of lack of unity. The examiner responsible for the search on a European application is also normally the first member of the Examining Division for that application.
Search Division consisting of more than one examiner
Where the invention is of a nature requiring searching in widely dispersed specialised fields, a special Search Division consisting of two, or possibly three, examiners may be formed, for example, where the "person skilled in the art" in the technical field of the application consists of more than one person (see G‑VII, 3).
Another case is where there is found to be a lack of unity in subject-matter between different technical fields.
In such cases, the documents found in the different technical fields by the first and by the other examiner(s) are included in the same search report. The search opinion however is prepared by one examiner only, if necessary in consultation with the examiner expert(s) in the other technical field(s).
EPC Article 18 Examining Divisions
(1) The Examining Divisions shall be responsible for the examination of European patent applications.
(2) An Examining Division shall consist of three technically qualified examiners. However, before a decision is taken on a European patent application, its examination shall, as a general rule, be entrusted to one member of the Examining Division. Oral proceedings shall be before the Examining Division itself. If the Examining Division considers that the nature of the decision so requires, it shall be enlarged by the addition of a legally qualified examiner. In the event of parity of votes, the vote of the Chairman of the Examining Division shall be decisive.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言