修正歐洲專利申請案增加未被檢索的特徵

筆記

本篇筆記參考「Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office」，以及過去報導，加上一些同事回饋客戶提供的意見。

在歐洲專利實務中，專利申請程序中「修正」是個頗為重要的議題，修正一般的規定可以從過去報導得出，本篇主要討論「如果修正被認定是「超出」原經過檢索的專利範圍」，會怎樣？

先問，(1)有否新事物（new matter）？再問(2)與原本經檢索的專利範圍之間是否具有單一性（unity）？

答案是：如果沒有新增新事物，也與原本經檢索專利範圍之間具有單一性，就符合修正規定。

[討論]
歐洲專利審查程序中，很特別的地方是，會先經過檢索單位（search division）進行專利檢索，提供檢索報告，還會伴隨初步審查意見，其中可能會報導單一性、明確性、新穎性、進步性等各項議題；之後，經過申請人回覆後，才會到審查單位（examination division）根據檢索報告進行實際審查，作出一份實際審查報告。

所述「修正超出原經過檢索的專利範圍」的意思是，在回應檢索報告或是實際審查報告時，申請人作出「超過原本申請時專利範圍」的修正，那歐洲專利局如何回應？

幾個相關規定：
(1)申請修正時，申請人應表示修訂的部份是依據原申請內容，若審查委員認為修正不合規定，應提出校正要求，並要求一個月內提出（重點一，申請人要表明這個修正沒有new matter，但即便有，也有提出校正的機會）。
(2)修改的權利範圍應不能非關經檢索範圍下的發明概念之外的內容，特別是不能關於"尚未檢索“的特徵，也不能包含因為單一性而未審查的其他獨立範圍（重點二，可增補修正的特徵應該是要在經過檢索的涵蓋範圍中）。

過去也曾經收到這類OA：歐洲專利申請案修正不得加入未經檢索的特徵（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post_8.html）

不過，特別的是，上述規定(2)中並不是那麼「古板」的規定，列舉曾經探討過得歐洲訴願案1636/12，在此案中，申請人對這個議題勝訴，該案申請人在修正時加入「未經檢索」的內容，雖被駁回，但是在訴願階段勝訴，有幾個小結論：

(1)經申請人修正的專利範圍將一些被檢索的權利範圍併項，並改寫其中特徵（說明書有支持），更將未被檢索的範圍改寫為依附為Claim 1的範圍，是被接受的（主要理由是仍在符合單一性的專利範圍之下）。
(2)但針對「未被檢索」的範圍，申請人有可能仍要花錢檢索與審查：修正後專利範圍包括了未在最初檢索範圍內的技術特徵，因此申請人需要提出額外的檢索費用作出額外的檢索報告，才能繼續審查其專利性（重點三，即便同意，有可能要額外繳費）。

我個人的實務經驗是，歐洲專利審查委員的寬容度算「寬」，即便修正時加入原來專利申請範圍沒有的特徵，但是在符合「單一性」的要求下，不會隨意認定申請人提出的修正是「未經檢索的範圍」。

因此，「單一性」與「新事物」是天條，若在符合單一性與未加入新事物的情況下，修正加入原本未記載於申請專利範圍但有被說明書支持的技術內容，是被允許的。


依照各種有關修正的法條規定（如以下一點非專業解釋），如Rule 137(5)，原則上，是不允許修正加入未被檢索的技術特徵，但是不允許的理由是「修正加入的部分未與原本經過檢索的發明之間具有單一性」。

根據歐洲專利審查基準（Guidelines for Examination）進一步規定（針對審查委員意見），（重點四）修正時加入的技術特徵應：(1)原本已在專利範圍的特徵；或是(2)對原本專利範圍技術效果有貢獻的特徵。

反過來說，從審查基準得出不符Rule 137(5)的修正規定如下，這類特徵應以「分割案」提出申請（重點五）。
(1)更換原本專利範圍中的技術特徵（即便是從說明書中得出）；
(2)修正加入與原本專利範圍技術效果無關的特徵。

[法條簡單解釋]
The European Patent Convention
Part VII – Implementing Regulations to Part VII of the Convention
Chapter VI – Amendments and corrections

Rule 137 – Amendment of the European patent application

(5)

Amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept. Nor may they relate to subject-matter not searched in accordance with Rule 62a or Rule 63.

（修正專利範圍不能關於「沒有與原本發明連結的"未被檢索的專利標的"而在單一廣義發明概念之下」）

（Rule 62a有關多個獨立請求項；Rule 63有關未完成檢索）

Rule 63 Incomplete search

(1)

If the European Patent Office considers that the European patent application fails to such an extent to comply with this Convention that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed, it shall invite the applicant to file, within a period of two months, a statement indicating the subject-matter to be searched. （若檢索單位無法作出有意義的檢索，要求申請人回應）

(2)

If the statement under paragraph 1 is not filed in due time, or if it is not sufficient to overcome the deficiency noted under paragraph 1, the European Patent Office shall either issue a reasoned declaration stating that the European patent application fails to such an extent to comply with this Convention that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed or, as far as is practicable, draw up a partial search report. The reasoned declaration or the partial search report shall be considered, for the purposes of subsequent proceedings, as the European search report. （若檢索單位不能作出有意義檢索，專利局仍會盡量繼續審查程序，包括提出部分檢索報告）

(3)

When a partial search report has been drawn up, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to restrict the claims to the subject-matter searched unless it finds that the objection under paragraph 1 was not justified.  （當檢索單位作出部分檢索報告，審查單位可要求申請人限制專利範圍到檢索的標的上）

Guidelines for Examination
Part H – Amendments and Corrections
Chapter II – Admissibility of amendments – general rules

6. Amendments relating to unsearched matter – Rule 137(5)

6.2

Subject-matter taken from the description 

Within the framework of Art. 123(2) and Art. 82, Rule 137(5), first sentence, should be construed as permitting any limitation of searched subject-matter which is unitary with the originally claimed subject-matter, irrespective of whether the technical feature(s) used for the limitation has/have been searched. （有關Rule 137(5)的可修正條件不是關於加入的技術特徵是否被檢索，而是允許與原本專利標的之間符合單一性的任何修正）（重點六）

Thus, the addition to a claim of a technical feature which further defines an element that was already a feature of the original main claim or makes a contribution to the effect(s) of the features of the originally claimed invention(s) and which was expressly not searched but was disclosed in the context of the invention in the application as filed (usually in the description) will not result in an amended claim lacking a single general inventive concept with respect to the originally claimed invention(s). Consequently no objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence, should be raised in these circumstances, even though an additional search may be required (see C‑IV, 7.2). （重要：修正時加入的技術特徵應：(1)原本專利範圍已有的特徵；或是(2)對原本專利範圍技術效果有貢獻的特徵，即便這樣的特徵並未被檢索，也不會導致被認為是缺乏單一性的修正）（重點七）

If amended claims are directed to subject-matter which has not been searched because it only appeared in the description (and the search division did not find it appropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter, see B‑III, 3.5) and which does not combine with the originally claimed and searched invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept, such amendments are not admissible. （如果修正的專利範圍涉及未被檢索的標的，也沒有與原本標的連結（combine）以建立單一發明概念，修正不會被允許）

In other words, in order to assess whether or not amended claims fulfill the requirements of Rule 137(5), first sentence, the examining division needs to establish first whether or not the subject-matter to which they relate has or should have been searched (see B‑III, 3.5) and second whether or not an objection of lack of unity would have been raised if the amended claims had been present in the set of claims on file at the time of the search. （審查單位要判斷修正部分是否已被檢索，以及是否與原本檢索後的專利範圍之間具有單一性）

As a consequence, an objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence, will normally arise if the applicant attempts to replace a technical feature contained in a claim with a different technical feature taken from the description. （若申請人通過修正更換技術特徵，不符修正規定）（重點八）

Similarly, an objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence, would also arise if a technical feature taken from the description which has an effect unrelated to the effect(s) of the features of the originally claimed invention(s) were added to a claim. （若修正加入的特徵無關於原本專利範圍的技術效果，不符修正規定）（重點九）

If an objection under Rule 137(5), first sentence is raised, the applicant should be informed that he may continue to pursue such subject-matter only in the form of a divisional application under Art. 76. （以上所述不符規定的更換技術特徵的部分應以分割案提出申請）

The situation described above is different from amendments corresponding to an invention originally claimed but not searched under Rule 64, or Rule 164(1) or (2), which are dealt with in H‑II, 7.2. （Rule 64/164指檢索時已被認定不具單一性的專利範圍，並無關Rule 137(5)的修正規定，表示，加入原申請專利範圍中未被檢索範圍的特徵的修正仍是依照上述「是否滿足單一性」的條件審理）

Applicants should bear in mind that the examining procedure should be brought to a conclusion in as few actions as possible. So the examining division may exercise its right not to admit further amendments under Rule 137(3) (see H‑II, 2.3). （即便符合各種規定，專利審查基準仍賦予審查單位判斷是否接受修正內容的裁量權）（重點十）

For Euro-PCT applications where the EPO acted as ISA or as SISA, the examining division has to issue an invitation under Rule 164(2) for any now claimed but unsearched invention contained in the originally filed application documents (description, claims and drawings, if any) which are to serve as the basis for examination upon expiry of the six-month time limit set in the communication under Rule 161 or Rule 162 (see C‑III, 2.3).

過去有關歐洲專利修正的報導：
- 歐洲專利說明書修正（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post_16.html）
- 歐洲專利修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post_28.html）
- EPO專利申請時的修正規定（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/01/epo.html）
- 歐洲專利檢索後的修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post_13.html）
- 歐洲專利申請案修正不得加入未經檢索的特徵（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post_8.html）

有關修正到未被檢索的專利範圍的案例：歐洲訴願T 1636/12（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/04/t-163612.html）

Ron