TWO-STEP適格性判斷法則中重要的step 2A prong 1(抽象概念、自然法則等法定例外)、step 2A prong 2(有額外元件整合法定例外為具體應用)與step 2B(有額外元件實質超越法定例外)：
AI發明通常先被判定為抽象概念（step 2A, prong 1），主要理由是AI通常涉及數學概念等法定例外不可專利的標的，部分是因為專利範圍描述的步驟形式上被視為僅是電腦軟體自動化管理人類活動的步驟。
從專利適格性審查指南中關於Generally的描述，可以得出一些相關意見答辯與回應的資訊：
Step 2A prong 1/Step 2B: Generally (一般性)
"The trained ANN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained ANN functions."
可參考：專利適格性需要可預期性與一致性 - 101審查意見筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2022/09/101.html）
"The trained ANN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained ANN functions."
"The DNN is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the recited mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how the DNN operates to derive the embedding vectors as a function of the input signal."
"It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers."
Step 2A prong 2: Exception integrated into a practical application
此步驟先找出專利範圍中的additional elements，再查是否整合為具體應用。
(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and（辨明出專利範圍中超越法定例外的額外元件/additional elements）
(2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.（評估額外元件/additional elements的個別或組合以判斷是否專利範圍的整體整合法定例外為具體應用）
See MPEP 2106.04(d).
判斷是否有整合為具體應用的方式之一是因為發明改善了電腦功能。
"One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."
根據範例，以電腦技術而言，專利範圍涉及現有電腦技術或其他技術的改良，而整合抽象概念為具體應用。
"the claim is directed to an improvement to existing computer technology or to the technology of speech separation, and the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application."
Step 2B: Claim is eligible because it provides an Inventive Concept
專利範圍描述了法定例外的事項（如抽象概念），申請專利範圍的整體不能整合法定例外為具體應用，則是表示專利範圍沒有實質超越法定例外，也就沒有進步概念（inventive concept）。
"Claim 1 is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea) and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept)."
是否專利範圍整體實質超越法定例外，也就是判斷是否額外元件的個別或是組合形成專利範圍中的進步概念。
"This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim."
當考量專利範圍中額外元件的組合是否僅是在電腦上實現抽象概念的指令，或是其他法定例外的動作，且僅是不重要的額外解決方案（insignificant extra-solution activity），專利範圍就不具有進步概念。
"Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept."
即便判斷有additional elements，但其使用ANN，僅是應用抽象概念的電腦指令，並沒有提供進步概念。
"The additional element of “using the trained ANN” in limitations (d) and (e) are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept."
See MPEP 2106.05(f)
可參考：甚麼是「insignificant extra-solution activity」？（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2023/12/insignificant-extra-solution-activity.html）。
是否發明具有整合例外項目為實際應用的"額外元件"，可以有以下判斷：
- 反映出電腦或技術功能的改善。
- 針對疾病與醫療情況，應用或使用法定例外影響特定治療方式或預防。
- 實現或使用法定例外項目，連結請求項中的特定機器（particular machine）或製作（manufacture）。
- 轉換或還原特定物品為不同的狀態或事物。
- 轉換或還原特定物品為不同的狀態或事物。
- 以有意義的方式以及超越一般使用方式應用或使用法定例外項目至特定技術環境中。
Step 2A prong two/Step 2B:
(1) improvements to functioning of a computer
"the claim invokes a generic DNN merely as a tool for making the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer."（僅是使用通常DNN/ANN作為數學工具，並沒有改善電腦技術。）
(2) particular treatment or prophylaxis (prong two only)
(3) particular machine
(4) meaningful limitations
(5) mere instructions to apply an exception
(6) insignificant extra-solution activity
(7) field of use and technological environment
(8) well-understood, routine, conventional activity (step 2B only)
針對two-step test中的step 2B中是否專利範圍的技術對於相關領域技術人員為「公知、常規與習知」是個事實判斷提出審查指南，簡單來說，就是要求審查委員要"基於事實"才能認定元件或其組合為公知、常規與習知（"well-understood, routine, conventional"），而且這部分的分析會很像112(a)，元件是否公知到說明書不需要描述其細節？如果是，自然就是公知的。
可參考：USPTO回應Berkheimer案提出step 2B審查備忘錄（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/04/usptoberkheimerstep-2b.html）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言