「摘要」的筆記 - MPEP 608.01(b)

MPEP 608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure

其中規定：

The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This disclosure describes,” etc.

規定摘要文字要清楚與簡潔，不應重複專利名稱（the title）已經給予的資訊，應避免使用"暗示（implied）"用句，如"this disclosure concerns", "the disclosure defined ..."與"this disclosure describes ..."。

甚至有些審查委員認為"are provided"都是屬於暗示用語，不准寫。

多數審查委員不能接受的是"disclosure is ..."、"is disclosed"、"the disclosure concerns"這類用語。

又在6.16節補充：

6.16 Abstract of the Disclosure: Language 

Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Examiner Note:

補充要避免Claim中的法律用語，如means, said等。

連結：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e44136

Ron

提交證據反駁核駁理由 - MPEP 716、37 CFR 1.132

37 CFR 1.132

Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections. When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)

MPEP 716 Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s716.html）

當專利申請案或在複審（reexamination）的專利被核駁（rejection）或因瑕疵被異議（objection），申請人除了一般回應（答辯、修正）外，還可以宣誓或聲明（declaration）方式提交「證據」回應審查意見，審查委員將審視這些證據判斷是否克服核駁或異議意見。

審查委員審視宣誓與證據後，可能回應：已克服審查意見、不足以克服審查意見與相關理由。

提交宣誓/聲明與證據的時機：

(1)接獲最終核駁意見（final office action）之前，若是針對核駁意見，第一次office action就應提交證據。

(2)非最終核駁意見的情況下提出訴願（appeal）之前。

(3)最終核駁意見之後，但在提出訴願之前。

(4)在審查程序關閉後（after prosecution is closed，如final rejection後、訴願後、核准後），若申請人提出接續審查請求（RCE）時。

審查委員是否會考量證據的判斷：

若符合上述時機提出的宣誓/聲明與證據，審查委員都應考量。若證據不足以克服審查意見，審查委員會提出解釋。

註解：

所提出的證據一般是針對非顯而易見性的議題，如證明發明非可預期的結果（unexpected result）、商業上的成功（commercial success）、解決長期需要但未解決的問題（long-felt but unsolved needs）、他人並未成功實現的發明（failure of others），或是解決專家的質疑（skepticism of experts）等所謂輔助性因素（‘secondary considerations’）。（細節可參考：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s716.html）

從以上筆記可知，提交證據一般是針對非顯而易見性的議題，特別地，關於證據本身的要求還有：客觀的證據；"nexus requirement"，也就是與申請專利範圍連結（nexus）的證據。

Ron

「摘要」的摘要－MPEP 1826與WIPO

之前的"摘要"：

- 有關摘要的撰寫規定 - 筆記＆範例（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html）

- 摘要的撰寫 - 避免言外之意（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post.html）

先看一下MPEP 608.01(b)（直接跳到這個章節－https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608-01-b.html）：

＂(b) A brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure." The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.＂

關於美國專利說明書摘要撰寫規定，可參考MPEP 1826（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1826.html）

撰寫摘要的原則：

SUMMARY OF ABSTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:（50-150字應指出發明領域、清楚指出發明解決的技術問題、解決方案的概要、用途、以小括號標註主要元件編號、必要時須放上化學式）

• (A) Indication of field of invention.
• (B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
• (C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
• (D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
• (E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
• (F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.

Should not contain:（不應包括冗餘的語言、法律用語如said,means、優點與推測的應用，以及PCT rule 9規定禁止的事項，如下）

• (A) Superfluous language.
• (B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
• (C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
• (D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.

PCT Rule 9（https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/texts/rules/r9）：

專利說明書不應記載以下事項：違反道德的內容或圖示、違反公眾秩序的內容或圖示、貶低申請人以外的其他人的產品或流程、貶低他人的優點與有效性（除非是跟自己前案比對）、其他無關或不必要的內容）

(i)  expressions or drawings contrary to morality; 

(ii)  expressions or drawings contrary to public order; 

(iii)  statements disparaging the products or processes of any particular person other than the applicant, or the merits or validity of applications or patents of any such person (mere comparisons with the prior art shall not be considered disparaging per se); 

(iv)  any statement or other matter obviously irrelevant or unnecessary under the circumstances.

另可參考WIPO的摘要撰寫指南：https://www.wipo.int/documents/d/standards/docs-en-03-12-a.pdf

搜尋此類議題看到不錯的文章（僅列舉一些）：

- https://blog.patentext.com/blog-posts/how-to-write-a-patent-abstract

- https://patentpc.com/blog/how-to-write-a-strong-patent-abstract-best-practices

- https://boldip.com/blog/patent-abstract-draft/

本部落格有關「摘要」的文章：

－在「有關摘要的撰寫規定 - 筆記＆範例（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html）」中提到：

"Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure" as a heading.

「摘要」內容可視為說明書（specification）的一部分，因此，表示要符合112規定，也會被核駁並要求修正，也會影響專利是否核准。

「摘要」撰寫應簡明地描述技術特徵，應關於揭露書揭示的發明（不得有無關內容），應包括發明中新穎的部分，不能包括優點與推測的內容，也不應與現有技術比較（編按，十分重要的提醒）。

如果發明關於現有技術的改良，摘要應該要包括改良的內容。

（重要）如果適用，應該：(1)如果是機器或裝置，應包括其中組成與運作；(2)如果是物品，應包括其製作方法；(3)如果是化學成份，應包括其特性與用途；(4)如果是混合物，應包括其成份；(5)如果是流程，應包括其步驟。有關衍生的機構與設計細節不應包括在摘要中。

若發明涉及化學成份，應提出其通式。

－摘要 - MPEP 608.01(b)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/12/mpep-60801b.html）

－在「摘要的撰寫 - 避免言外之意（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post.html）」中提到：

「摘要應以敘事方式撰寫，並限定在分開紙張的單一約50~150英文字的段落，應避免使用請求項的格式與法律措辭，如"means"（手段）與"said"（該），摘要描述的內容要實質幫助讀者決定是否有需要進一步查閱完整的專利文本。摘要用語應該清晰簡潔，不應重複如專利名稱的資訊，應避免使用暗示的用語，如"the disclosure concerns"、"the disclosure defined by this invention"與"the disclosure describes"等」。

這裡所謂「暗示（imply, implication）」應是指「言外之意」，或說「其他含意」。當摘要的用意是讓讀者可以快速得到專利的主要精神，就不應有「言外之意」。因此，MPEP提示哪些會有「言外之意」，列舉了常常會寫的「the disclosure concerns」、「the disclosure defined by this invention」與「the disclosure describes」等。

－專利說明書中影響專利範圍解釋的內容 - Fenner Investments v. Cellco Partnership (Fed. Cir. 2015)（enpan.blogspot.com/2024/12/fenner-investments-v-cellco-partnership.html）

（摘要怎麼寫原則上是不會影響專利範圍）

Ron

程度用語不明確議題以及宣告 - Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

查「Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1335, 94 USPQ2d at 1328」案例，因為兩造有兩件訴訟，有不同議題，本次討論為2010年 - Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)，在MPEP 2173.05(b)是作為「解決不明確的"宣告"（declaration）」說明的引用案例。

"During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by providing evidence that the meaning of the term of degree can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. For example, in Enzo Biochem, the applicant submitted a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that met the claim limitation and examples that did not. Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1335, 94 USPQ2d at 1328 (noting that applicant overcame an indefiniteness rejection over “not interfering substantially” claim language by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 listing eight specific linkage groups that applicant declared did not substantially interfere with hybridization or detection)."（在專利審查過程中，為了要克服不明確（程度用語）核駁意見，可以提出證據證明相關領域一般技術人員可以通過閱讀說明書而查明該用語。在Enzo Biochem案例中，申請人提交「符合專利範圍限制的範例和不符合專利範圍限制的範例」宣告，在不影響專利範圍解釋的情況下克服不明確核駁意見。）

37 CFR 1.132 (提交證據以反駁核駁/rejections或基於缺陷的反對/objection意見的宣告)

Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections.

When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.

雙方另一爭議是：2017年均等論的議題 - Enzo Biochem v. Applera (Fed. Cir. 2017)：均等論，永遠是個議題 - Enzo Biochem v. Applera (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/08/enzo-biochem-v-applera-fed-cir-2017.html）。

本篇討論2010年案：

原告/上訴人/專利權人：ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC., and YALE UNIVERSITY

被告/被上訴人：APPLERA CORP. and TROPIX, INC.

系爭專利：US5,328,824、US5,449,767、US5,476,928、US5,082,830

判決日期：March 26, 2010

背景技術：

系爭專利關於標記與檢測核酸（如DNA和RNA）的技術，判決文前幾頁向我們說明相關背景技術，對於理解案例頗為受用。DNA與RNA的基本單元稱「核苷酸（nucleotide）」，每一個nucleotide由nitrogenous base、pentose sugar與phosphate group組成。DNA或RNA的兩股（strands）相互結合，或稱為「hybridize（雜交）」，形成雙股混合體（hybrid），此混合體通過互補鹼基之間的氫鍵連接在一起。

以上hybridize機制以DNA為例，一股上的adenine與另一股上的thymine相互結合；在RNA中，其中adenine結合到uracil；對於DNA與RNA，則是以cytosine結合guanine。所形成的雙股混合體稱「雜交/hybridization」，相反的程序則是將兩股分離，稱「denaturation」。

因為hybridization發生在可預測的互補股之間，因此可以用於檢測樣本中是否存在目標核酸（nucleic acid）。在此舉例，用"label/標記"結合到已知序列的核酸股，形成「檢測器」，使之雜交至互補序列，形成目標，一旦檢測器雜交於目標上，即產生可偵測的訊號，也就可以成為檢測核酸的依據。

核酸的標記可以通過多種「化學物質」實現，如一種「放射性標記（radioactive labels）」，可以使用放射性檢測器檢測核酸，但是這有＂可能有害、昂貴與不穩定＂等缺點，系爭專利針對此放射性標記提出解決方案－使用一種化合物取代放射性標記，如：

根據判決文的解釋，在此化合物中，含氮鹼基「B」透過共價鍵直接或通過「linkage group」（圖中虛線）連接到化學物「A」。這個linkage group於系爭專利獨立請求項中是以＂不實質干擾（not substantially interfere with）＂功能性地寫在專利範圍中。所述化學物「A」就是系爭專利中用來檢測核酸的「label」。

地方法院階段：
專利權人Enzo於2004在地院對Applera提出侵權告訴，原本是提出6件專利，上訴後為4件專利。

在地方法院解釋專利範圍時，針對上述「linkage group」解釋，認為＂不實質干擾＂意思是不實質干擾化合物雜交於核酸的能力，也不實質干擾A可被檢測的能力。

（...跳過一些技術討論...）

地院判決對'830侵權不成立。

針對'824、'767與'928，被告Applera提出系爭專利缺乏揭露內容（written description）、缺乏可據以實施（enablement）要件，以及不明確（indefinite）等不符35U.S.C.112專利無效的主張，另提出專利不具新穎性的主張，地院否決以上「缺乏揭露內容與無法據以實施」主張；但同意「不明確」以及「缺乏新穎性」的主張。

（在此僅討論不明確議題）

地方法院認為系爭專利不明確的理由就是所述「不實質干擾（not interfering substantially）」用語不明確，因為說明書並未提出如何量測或是提出判斷門檻，因此判決以上三件系爭專利無效（不明確或是缺乏新穎性）。

學習一：針對相對用語，說明書應提出解釋：如量測方法、判斷門檻。

CAFC階段：

法院先建立法律基礎，包括針對112議題（針對'824、'767與'928）的立場，以及專利有效推定原則，如果要在法院證明專利無效，需要清楚而有說服力的證據（優勢證據）。

學習二：法院說明缺乏新穎性與不明確兩個議題不能同時存在，理由是如果不明確就無法解釋專利範圍，也就不能判斷是否具有新穎性。

原告/專利權人Enzo主張專利說明書已經明確揭露所述「not substantially interfere with」- linkage group不實質干擾hybridization與detection，也就是說明書已經揭露量測的依據...。

CAFC法官同意Enzo的主張，認為是否「不明確」是基於相關領域技術人員是否可以理解來判斷的（"Indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed."）。解釋專利範圍應參考專利範圍用語、說明書與審查歷史，如果專利範圍涉及＂純功能用語＂，相關判斷將強烈倚賴說明書與相關領域一般技術人員的知識。

學習三：是否明確不是單純以字面上（如本案例not substantially ...）來判斷，而是由相關領域技術人員是否可以理解來決定。

「不實質干擾」用語是用來描述「hybridization」與「detection」，法院對此提出見解。

CAFC修改地方法院針對三件系爭專利範圍的解釋，認為各案為獨立，專利範圍有差異，不應採用統一的解釋。雖同意地院對'824與'767中「hybridization」的解釋，但卻認為其中用語"substantially"模糊，並定義"substantially"：可指近似或是描述程度（approximation或magnitude）。

在系爭專利中，所述"substantially"應指程度（language of magnitude），因為是用來描述干擾hybridization過程的程度。

於是法院鉅細靡遺地從說明書與審查歷史解釋所謂不實質干擾hybridization，特別地提到在專利審查過程中，Enzo針對不明確的核駁意見提出「宣告/declaration」，當時引用專家簽署的文件證明所述linkage group不實質干擾hybridization或是detection。

學習四：面對不明確質疑，可以提出專家證詞的宣告（declaration）。

法院又依據一些前例，認為即便申請專利範圍中沒有相關程度的判斷依據，但仍認為系爭專利範圍中涉及hybridization以及關聯的detection等描述為明確。

（在此忽略關於新穎性判斷的內容）

CAFC判決文：https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1281.pdf

Ron

美國設計的圖式範例與規定 - 筆記

延續前一篇，仍是來看超有用美國設計專頁：https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/design-patent，應該會分幾篇來筆記。

前一篇：設計新穎性優惠期隨筆 - 35 U.S.C. 102（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2026/05/35-usc-102.html）。

參考MPEP 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application Filed Under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1503.html）。

實務上，「美國設計申請案」規定是比其他各國更嚴格，要求比較多，從範例來看看美國設計專利的規定。

Straight-line surface shading（直線表面陰影）

相關規定段落：

37 CFR 1.152  Design drawings.

The design must be represented by a drawing that complies with the requirements of § 1.84 and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design. Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the surfaces represented. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Broken lines may be used to show visible environmental structure, but may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque materials. Alternate positions of a design component, illustrated by full and broken lines in the same view are not permitted in a design drawing. Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be combined as formal drawings in one application. Photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings in design patent applications must not disclose environmental structure but must be limited to the design claimed for the article.

II. SURFACE SHADING

While surface shading is not required under 37 CFR 1.152, it may be necessary in particular cases to shade the figures to show clearly the character and contour of all surfaces of any 3-dimensional aspects of the design. Surface shading is also necessary to distinguish between any open and solid areas of the article. However, surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter, shown in broken lines, to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.

Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). Additionally, if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading after filing may comprise new matter. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Oblique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror. Contrast in materials may be shown by using line shading in one area and stippling in another. By using this technique, the claim will broadly cover contrasting surfaces unlimited by colors. The claim would not be limited to specific material either, as long as the appearance of the material does not patentably depart from the visual appearance illustrated in the drawing.

Stippling（點描）

相關規定段落：

Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). Additionally, if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading after filing may comprise new matter. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Oblique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror. Contrast in materials may be shown by using line shading in one area and stippling in another. By using this technique, the claim will broadly cover contrasting surfaces unlimited by colors. The claim would not be limited to specific material either, as long as the appearance of the material does not patentably depart from the visual appearance illustrated in the drawing.

Combination of straight-line shading and stippling（直線陰影與點描的組合）

(點描和直線陰影可以同時用在一個物體上，但不能在同一表面上同時使用)

相關規定段落：

III. BROKEN LINES

The two most common uses of broken lines are to disclose the environment related to the claimed design and to define the bounds of the claim. Structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied, or applied to, that is not considered part of the claimed design. See In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). Unclaimed subject matter may be shown in broken lines for the purpose of illustrating the environment in which the article embodying the design is used. Unclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof. A boundary line may be shown in broken lines if it is not intended to form part of the claimed design. Applicant may choose to define the bounds of a claimed design with broken lines when the boundary does not exist in reality in the article embodying the design. It would be understood that the claimed design extends to the boundary but does not include the boundary. When a boundary line is introduced via amendment or in a continuation application, the introduction of the boundary line must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). See In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1366-67, 106 USPQ2d 1248, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For example, unclaimed boundary lines should satisfy the written description requirement where they make explicit a boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed in the original disclosure. See Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368-69, 106 USPQ2d at 1252. Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter where such amendment complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Additionally, any broken line boundary other than a straight broken line may constitute new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).

Transparent materials（透明材料）

(陰影斜線用於表示透明或半透明表面（拋光或反光表面），透明表面"後面可見的元素"應使用淺色實線表示，而不是虛線。)

相關規定段落：

Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). Additionally, if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading after filing may comprise new matter. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Oblique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror. Contrast in materials may be shown by using line shading in one area and stippling in another. By using this technique, the claim will broadly cover contrasting surfaces unlimited by colors. The claim would not be limited to specific material either, as long as the appearance of the material does not patentably depart from the visual appearance illustrated in the drawing.

Broken-line disclosure（虛線）

(虛線用於表示環境與邊界，屬於不主張權利的部份)

相關規定段落：

III. BROKEN LINES

The two most common uses of broken lines are to disclose the environment related to the claimed design and to define the bounds of the claim. Structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied, or applied to, that is not considered part of the claimed design. See In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). Unclaimed subject matter may be shown in broken lines for the purpose of illustrating the environment in which the article embodying the design is used. Unclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof. A boundary line may be shown in broken lines if it is not intended to form part of the claimed design. Applicant may choose to define the bounds of a claimed design with broken lines when the boundary does not exist in reality in the article embodying the design. It would be understood that the claimed design extends to the boundary but does not include the boundary. When a boundary line is introduced via amendment or in a continuation application, the introduction of the boundary line must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). See In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1366-67, 106 USPQ2d 1248, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For example, unclaimed boundary lines should satisfy the written description requirement where they make explicit a boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed in the original disclosure. See Owens, 710 F.3d at 1368-69, 106 USPQ2d at 1252. Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter where such amendment complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Additionally, any broken line boundary other than a straight broken line may constitute new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).

However, broken lines are not permitted for the purpose of indicating that a portion of an article is of less importance in the design. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967). broken lines may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces which cannot be seen through opaque materials. The use of broken lines indicates that the environmental structure or the portion of the article depicted in broken lines forms no part of the design, and is not to indicate the relative importance of parts of a design.

In general, when broken lines are used, they should not intrude upon or cross the showing of the claimed design and should not be of heavier weight than the lines used in depicting the claimed design. When broken lines cross over the full line showing of the claimed design and are defined as showing environment, it is understood that the surface which lies beneath the broken lines is part of the claimed design. When the broken lines crossing over the design are defined as boundaries, it is understood that the area within the broken lines is not part of the claimed design. Therefore, when broken lines are used which cross over the full line showing of the design, it is critical that the description of the broken lines in the specification explicitly identifies their purpose so that the scope of the claim is clear. As it is possible that broken lines with different purposes may be included in a single application, the description must make a visual distinction between the two purposes; such as --The broken lines immediately adjacent the shaded areas represent the bounds of the claimed design while all other broken lines are directed to environment and are for illustrative purposes only; the broken lines form no part of the claimed design.-- Where a broken line showing of environmental structure must necessarily cross or intrude upon the representation of the claimed design and obscures a clear understanding of the design, such an illustration should be included as a separate figure in addition to the other figures which fully disclose the subject matter of the design. Further, surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter shown in broken lines to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.

The following form paragraphs may be used, where appropriate, to notify applicant regarding the use of broken lines in the drawings.

Exploded view（爆炸圖）

(爆炸圖僅為設計的補充，必須使用"括號"來表示其中多個元件之間的關聯)

Alternate positions（多種位置）

(設計有不同的位置/樣態或是其中元件都應以分開視圖表示)

相關規定段落：

The design must be represented by a drawing that complies with the requirements of § 1.84 and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design. Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the surfaces represented. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Broken lines may be used to show visible environmental structure, but may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque materials. Alternate positions of a design component, illustrated by full and broken lines in the same view are not permitted in a design drawing. Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be combined as formal drawings in one application. Photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings in design patent applications must not disclose environmental structure but must be limited to the design claimed for the article.

Article shown broken away（物體被斷開）

(可利用斷開圖表示細節，但仍需有另一視圖顯示全貌；說明書應說明斷開部分顯示的物件不構成要保護的部分)

Cross-sectional view（剖面圖）

(剖面圖是為了減少視圖的用意，用以揭露內部結構。但是，僅用來展示內部結構或功能就不用提交剖面圖（畢竟設計一般是表示外部結構的特徵）)

Multiple embodiments（多實施例）

(單一概念的多個實施例 - 外觀和形狀相似，可以在同一申請案提交)

Ron

設計新穎性優惠期隨筆 - 35 U.S.C. 102

超有用內容：https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/design-patent

發明與設計"本質上"的差異規定在MPEP 1502.01

差異包括：(A)專利期限不同（現行）：發明20年、設計15年；(B)設計專利沒有維護費用；(C)設計案僅能有一項專利範圍；(D)審查委員可酌情限制申請案中的多個發明，但設計案僅能一個設計；(E)國際發明申請案依照PCT規定，國際設計申請案則適用Hague協議；(F)發明案一般優先權期限為1年，設計案則是6個月；(G)發明申請案可以主張美國臨時申請案優先權，但設計案沒有；(H)發明與植物申請案有RCE程序，但設計案並沒有；(I)設計案有CPA審查程序（可比擬RCE）；(J)發明申請案有早期公開規定，設計申請案沒有。

摘錄MPEP關於"design"新穎性規定的段落（本篇以設計為主角，但規定都與utility申請案一致）：

MPEP 2152 Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b)（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html）

MPEP 2153 Prior Art Exceptions Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html）

審查＂設計申請案＂新穎性時，同樣地須以其優先權作為有效申請日；若有阻礙新穎性的前案時，將考慮新穎性例外條款，AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)排除條款限於排除創作人或其共同創作人或自創作人/共同創作人直接或間接取得的人在有效申請日前一年內＂已公開揭露/publicly disclosed＂的創作。（ps.可排除自己＂申請日前一年內＂的公開揭露）

MPEP 2153.01

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides exceptions to the prior art provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). These exceptions limit the use of an inventor's or at least one joint inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor's or at least one joint inventor’s own work has been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor not more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made: (1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. MPEP § 2153.01(a) discusses issues pertaining to inventor-originated disclosures within the grace period. MPEP § 2152.01 discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention.

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B)排除條款用於排除＂設計被創作人、共同創作人或直接或間接取得的人公開揭露＂"之後"的揭露。條件是(1)有效申請日前一年內；(2)創作被創作人等"更早之前已公開揭露"。（ps.創作人自己的公開揭露可以排除其他人在後的揭露，這些揭露都應該在＂設計申請日前一年內＂）

ps.以下節錄內容的下半部就是討論"創作人之前的公開揭露"也應在創作"有效申請日"前一年內，才自己符合AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)的grace period。

MPEP 2153.02

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides an additional exception to the prior art provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) excepts as prior art a disclosure of subject matter that occurs after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor (i.e., an inventor-originated public disclosure). Specifically, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (patent, printed publication, public use, sale, or other means of public availability) is excepted as prior art if: (1) the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) the subject matter disclosed had been previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. The previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter typically will be a disclosure within the one-year grace period (i.e., a grace period inventor-originated disclosure). However, if the previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter was made outside the grace period, that disclosure itself would qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). In other words, a previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter can be effective to establish that a grace period disclosure is excepted as prior art regardless of whether the previous inventor-originated disclosure was made within the grace period or not. MPEP § 2152.01 discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention. MPEP § 2155.02 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, and MPEP § 2155.03 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that the disclosure was made, or that the subject matter had been previously publicly disclosed, by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

申請時是否要聲明「新穎性優惠期」的相關資訊，答案是可以不用，但提出聲明可以加快審查（寫在cross-reference (37 CFR 1.78)）。

Applicants can include a statement regarding any grace period inventor-originated public disclosures in the specification upon filing. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) and MPEP § 608.01(a). In order to be effective to show that a grace period inventor-originated public disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception applies, the statement must convey the same information as would be required in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a). See MPEP §§ 717.01(a)(1) , 2155.01, and 2155.03. An applicant is not required to identify any grace period inventor-originated public disclosures or to use the format specified in 37 CFR 1.77, but identifying any such disclosures may expedite examination of the application and save applicants (and the Office) the costs related to an Office action and reply. If the patent application specification as filed contains a specific reference to a grace period inventor-originated public disclosure, and an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 from the inventor or the appropriate joint inventor(s) has been made of record, the Office will consider it apparent from the specification that the grace period public disclosure is attributable to the inventor or a joint inventor, provided there is a sufficient explanation of why the exception applies to a particular disclosure and there is no other evidence to the contrary. The applicant should also provide a copy of the grace period inventor-originated public disclosure (e.g., copy of a printed publication). The format specified in 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) may not be the basis to add information about inventor-originated grace period public disclosures to the specification after the filing date of the application. Such an amendment may be considered new matter. Applicants should use 37 CFR 1.130(a) to submit such information after filing.

Ron

專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記3

本篇繼前兩篇(已經是1年前了)再補一篇，內容是基於「The Role of Patent (In)Eligibility in Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation」的啟發：

- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記1（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-1.html）

- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記2（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-2.html）

前篇報導：考量AI發明的專利適格性，將AI技術分為三個層次： 

(1) data layer（資料層），這是關於用於訓練AI的訓練資料（training data）、測試資料（testing data）與驗證資料（validation data），經完成訓練後建立AI模型，AI模型最後根據輸入資料產生預測結果等的輸出資料。

(2) application layer（應用層）(i.e., software)，這是關於電腦軟體，通過軟體驅動AI系統執行相應的動作、作決定以及產生結果。舉例來說，深度學習模型讓AI搜尋抽象的數據，AI神經網路則是倚賴數學模型執行分析。

(3) system layer（系統層）(i.e., hardware)，這是關於AI系統的硬體，即電腦硬體。

（以下是我講義的片段）

1. Patent Eligibility of AI Data

2. Patent Eligibility of AI Applications

3. Patent Eligibility of AI Systems

順帶一提歐洲AI相關專利適格性：

4. AI Patent Litigation

TW：

US：

（訴訟面對到AI發明專利適格性議題時，被挑戰的不會僅是數學問題(這部分常常應該USPTO就解決了)，而是應用已知AI技術到特定應用上的情況）

（可參考本文下方補充內容）

5. AI Patent Prosecution

（面對(答辯)因為發明是抽象概念不具專利適格性的全面駁回的範例）

補充內容：

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

MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More

A. Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept

The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h).

Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:

重要!（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中可以具備＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)電腦功能的改善，如DDR案；(ii)技術領域中的技術改良，如Diamond案；(iii)使用在特定機器；(iv)轉換特定物品到另一個狀態；(v)加入已知、常規或習知活動以外的特定限制，使發明有具體應用；(vi)發明具備超過連接法定例外到特定技術環境的有意義的限制。）

• i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
• ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
• iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
• iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
• v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
• vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).

Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:

（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中"不夠＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)在電腦上應用法定例外(如抽象概念)；(ii)加入已知、常規與習知活動(高度普遍性)；(iii)在法定例外(如抽象概念)加入不重要的額外解決方案(extra-solution activity)；(iv)僅一般地連結法定例外到特定技術環境。）

• i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
• ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
• iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
• iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).

Ron