先列舉一個軟體專利案請求項範例，範例：US9699175，關於「一個帳戶的評價」，這個專利範圍是通過期末拋棄（terminal disclaimer）直接獲准，對應的另一家族專利US9455974（此案應該是策略性地放棄），'974審查歷史中"不意外地"曾面對35U.S.C.101的阻礙，答辯歷史可以看出一些這些大公司如何面對101、103等審查意見，案件經過幾次修正形成（如下），算很典型的軟體發明專利，有趣的是，這可以看出「Google怎麼評分一個帳戶」，這是從安全性考量來評分，相關因素有：使用者年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、名聲、儲存數據量、帳戶存取其他帳戶的能力、帳戶存取或使用商業工具的能力。
US9455974：
第一次OA的101核駁：請求項發明關於使用者帳戶的資料預算、儲存與操作，屬於抽象概念，其中技術為一般目的電腦實現，沒有實質超越法定不予專利的標的。
第一次修正（claim 16）：
第二次OA的101核駁：前次修正併入的技術特徵，單獨或整體來看，並未建立有意義的技術限制使之超越法定不予專利理由。
第二次修正（Claim 16）：
這次的答辯意見（針對101），Google表示修正專利範圍Claim 16，併入的特徵描述藉由判斷安全性相關行為而保護儲存帳戶數據避免未授權存取的系統，並列舉出所述安全性相關行為的幾個項目。據此，再引用註明案例DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP (Fed. Cir. 2014)，主張如法院對此前案的判定中指出：如果並非單純描述通過網路驅使商業活動的效能，若提供的電腦技術可以克服電腦網路領域中的問題，為符合專利適格性的可專利的發明。
本案經提出RCE後，USPTO發出核准通知，看來以上修正與答辯有效地證明專利為改良電腦技術而具有專利適格性。而審委在核准通知並未明確回應以上101的答辯意見，而是判定專利克服先前技術的核駁理由而獲准。
Google在專利獲准後還提交一次簡單語句修正，最終領證。
以下列舉Claim 1（原Claim 16）專利範圍，描述一個系統，可通過判斷安全性相關行為保護帳戶數據免於未授權存取，系統包括「一或多個處理器」、「一些資料儲存裝置」以及「一或多個非暫態電腦可讀取儲存媒體」，其中儲存電腦程式指令，經處理器執行後，執行了以下步驟...其中描述了強化帳號的強度的相關措施。
1. A system for protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:one or more processors,
a plurality of data storage facilities that maintain data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements are distributed across two or more data storage facilities and comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data maintained at a first data storage facility, metadata descriptive of the actual user data maintained at a second data storage facility, user profile data maintained at a third data storage facility, and measured usage parameters maintained at a fourth data storage facility; and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the processors to:
automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein each of the plurality of signals comprises one or more characteristics of the account, selected from: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account,
for each of the signals, determine a signal value,
assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values,
use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account,
use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:
enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,
enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,
enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,
adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,
triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or
adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and
cause an account system that comprises the plurality of data storage facilities to automatically implement the selected security-related action.
US9699175：
此案為上述'974的家族專利，面對重複專利的阻礙，之後經Terminal Disclaimer後獲准專利。
此案Claim 1描述保護帳戶數據的方法，典型的軟體專利，通過處理器執行程式指令後執行以下步驟：接收使用者帳戶關聯的數據，自動識別數據特徵，參考了帳戶的特徵：年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、存取其他帳戶的另、名聲、數據量、存取或使用商業工具的能力與數據的形式等，如此來評價相關數據（評分），接著就是加強安全性的措施。
1. A method of protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:by a processor, implementing programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to:
receive, from at least two different data storage facilities, a plurality of data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data, metadata descriptive of the actual user data, user profile data, or measured usage parameters;
automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein the signals comprise one or more of the following characteristics of the account: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account;
for each of the signals, determine a signal value;
assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values;
use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account;
use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:
enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,
enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,
enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,
adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,
triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or
adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and
instruct the plurality of data storage facilities from which the data elements were received to automatically implement the selected security-related action.
這裡補充一些與同事討論「請求項撰寫」的一些問題。
MPEP 608.01教我們如何撰寫專利範圍，其中608.01(m)則是提到請求項的格式（form of claims），主要是提醒申請人專利範圍應獨立於專利說明書其他的部份，如何開始、結束、分行、縮排，也說明這些格式規定是因為「專利撰寫實務」，不過都是目前撰寫專利請求項時依循的準則。
- 用I/We claim或The invention claimed is開始（不會排除其他類似的用語）。
- 專利元件/步驟分行、縮排，主要是易讀的目的。
- 請求項中可以用小括號標註元件編號（不會影響專利範圍的解讀）。
- 一句話原則，每個請求項就一個句號（period）。
- 依照請求項標的分組，不混淆產品、流程的專利範圍。
608.01(m) Form of Claims
The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). 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, 37 CFR 1.75(i).
There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.
Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.
Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.
When two claims in an application comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) but are duplicates, or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other claim under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. Note however, that court decisions have confirmed applicant’s right to restate (i.e., by plural claiming) the invention in a reasonable number of ways. Indeed, a mere difference in scope between claims has been held to be enough. Form paragraphs 7.05.05 and 7.05.06 may be used where duplicate claims are present in an application.
See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection II, for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of dependent claims that do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. See MPEP § 804 for double patenting rejections of claims in different applications that are not patentable over each other.
The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.
The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.
一些會被駁回的寫法：
- 沒有用分開的頁面撰寫請求項。
- 不合格式規定情況：沒有用小括號標示編號；請求項撰寫過於擁擠、不具可讀性（有建議行距）。
- 專利請求項中有實質相同的範圍（僅用語wording差別）。
¶ 6.18.01 Claims: Placement
The claims in this application do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.
¶ 7.29.01 Claims Objected to, Minor Informalities
Claim[1] objected to because of the following informalities: [2]. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
¶ 7.29.03 Claims Objected to, Spacing of Lines
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim [1] be found allowable, claim [2] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection
Claim [1] objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim [2]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
參考資料：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言