審查委員所認定的可專利性 - 101筆記

這段內容出現在審查委員某次審查意見中，當案件審理過程，MPEP要求審查委員對101, 102, 103, 112都要有所評論，雖然不是全部都會表示在審查意見中（通常沒出現表示沒問題），但也偶爾會表示出來，例如以上摘錄內容表示受審查的專利範圍涉及「方法（method）」與「裝置（apparatus）」，兩者都屬於法定可專利的類別中（101，通過TWO-STEP測試的step 1: statutory categories），但認為其中流程（process）如計算...、產生...、加總...等步驟，可被認為是抽象概念（數學演算，step 2A: judicial exceptions），但他們直指"directed to"程序產生的應用為相關領域的「技術改良（improvement in the technology）」因此具備「實質超越（significantly more，step 2B: inventive concept）」抽象概念的額外元件（additional element，有些是我補上的）。

先講MPEP 2106的相關規定，其中某段落要求審查委員，不論是否作出有關101的核駁意見，一個完整的審查應對所有專利性要件（101, 102, 103, 112）以及"非法定重複專利(MPEP 2103)"做出意見。

在MPEP 2103提示審查委員審查101要件時，避免將101議題導向判斷102, 103, 112等議題，101就是101，不要混淆。這已經在相關案例確認這個原則。

在一篇USPTO關於專利適格性研討會的檔案中，某段落中提到(1)「評估所述額外元件（additional elements）的 意義」，並(2)「識別出額外元件與評估他們的意義：得出請求項中的進步的概念（inventive concept）」，之後，(3)考量這些額外元件的個別或組合以評估是否專利範圍的整體（as a whole）為實質超越（significantly more）抽象概念。

以下舉出可以產生實質超越抽象概念效果的額外元件：

1. 改善其他技術或技術領域。
2. 改善電腦功能。
3. 在抽象概念上，或是通過特定機器（particular machine）：(1)不能是一般目的電腦執行一般電腦功能；(2)不能僅加入用語"apply it“或是"實施抽象概念的等效用語；(3)不能僅是在電腦中實現抽象概念的指令。
4. 轉換特定物品為不同的狀態或事物的效果。
5. 加入"非公知‘常規與習知"的特定限制。
6. 加入非習知的步驟而可限定專利範圍為有用的應用上（不能僅是加入非重要的額外方案活動，如資料採集）。
7. 加入有意義限制到特定技術領域，而能使得專利範圍超越其一般抽象概念的使用。

[引用段落]
Evaluate the significance of the additional elements. Identifying additional elements and evaluating their significance involves the search for an “inventive concept” in the claim. It can be helpful to keep in mind what applicant invented (identified in Section I above) and how that relates to the additional elements to evaluate their significance. Consider all of the identified additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Reasons supporting the significance of the additional elements can include one or more of the following: 
 improves another technology or technical field 
 improves the functioning of a computer itself 
 applies the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine 
o not a generic computer performing generic computer functions 
o not adding the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” 
o not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer 
 effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing 
 adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field 
o not appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality 
o not a generic computer performing generic computer functions 
 adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application 
o not adding insignificant extrasolution activity, such as mere data gathering
 adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment 

[MPEP 2103]
...
The patent eligibility inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 101 is a threshold inquiry. Even if a claimed invention qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must also satisfy the other conditions and requirements of the patent laws, including the requirements for novelty (35 U.S.C. 102), nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103), and adequate description and definite claiming (35 U.S.C. 112). Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010). Therefore, examiners should avoid focusing on issues of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 to the detriment of considering an application for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 103, and 35 U.S.C. 112, and should avoid treating an application solely on the basis of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 except in the most extreme cases.
...
VI. CLEARLY COMMUNICATE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR BASES

Once examiners have concluded the above analyses of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm that they are able to set forth a prima facie case of unpatentability. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them.

（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2103.html）

[MPEP 2106 III]
MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
...
III. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND FLOWCHART

Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the following flowchart. The flowchart illustrates the steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. It is recognized that under the controlling legal precedent there may be variations in the precise contours of the analysis for subject matter eligibility that will still achieve the same end result. The analysis set forth herein promotes examination efficiency and consistency across all technologies.

As shown in the flowchart, Step 1 relates to the statutory categories and ensures that the first criterion is met by confirming that the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03 for more information on Step 1. Step 2, which is the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, is a two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate what more such claims recite to provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) (also called a practical application) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04 for more information on Step 2A, and MPEP § 2106.05 for more information on Step 2B.

The flowchart also shows three pathways (A, B, and C) to eligibility:

• Pathway A: Claims taken as a whole that fall within a statutory category (Step 1: YES) and, which may or may not recite a judicial exception, but whose eligibility is self-evident can be found eligible at Pathway A using a streamlined analysis. See MPEP § 2106.06 for more information on this pathway and on self-evident eligibility.
• Pathway B: Claims taken as a whole that fall within a statutory category (Step 1: YES) and are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) are eligible at Pathway B. These claims do not need to go to Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.04 for more information about this pathway and Step 2A.
• Pathway C: Claims taken as a whole that fall within a statutory category (Step 1: YES), are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and recite additional elements either individually or in an ordered combination that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: YES) are eligible at Pathway C. See MPEP § 2106.05 for more information about this pathway and Step 2B.

Claims that could have been found eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis), but are subjected to further analysis at Steps 2A or Step 2B, will ultimately be found eligible at Pathways B or C. Thus, if the examiner is uncertain about whether a streamlined analysis is appropriate, the examiner is encouraged to conduct a full eligibility analysis. However, if the claim is not found eligible at any of Pathways A, B or C, the claim is patent ineligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Regardless of whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is made, a complete examination should be made for every claim under each of the other patentability requirements: 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, 112, and 101 (utility, inventorship and double patenting) and non-statutory double patenting. MPEP § 2103.

這裏有張很清楚的TWO-STEP測試流程：

（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html）

Ron