2008年12月23日 星期二

Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot Program

Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot Program

主要特徵是:
  1. Pre-Appeal(先前訴願)方案提供美國專利申請人在進入訴願階段前(發出Appeal Brief之前)的可選擇的方案之一,由多位審查委員組成的專門小組(panel)先行審閱核駁理由中的法條規定與認定事實
  2. 若此專門小組判斷該申請案尚未到需要進入訴願階段的程度時,此方案能節省申請人準備Appeal Brief的時間與費用
  3. 雖此方案並不見得適用每一件要進入訴願階段的案子,但在適當地情況下,此方案確實可以節省很多申請人與專利局的資源
  4. 申請人仍可繼續執行一般在進入訴願委員會前有關訴願的規定(37 CFR 41)的程序
[原文]
This new program offers applicants an avenue to request that a panel of examiners formally review the legal and factual basis of the rejections in their application prior to the filing of an appeal brief. Effective immediately, the USPTO is offering applicants an optional procedure to
review the examiner's rejection prior to the actual filing of an appeal brief. The program is intended to spare applicants the added time and expense of preparing an appeal brief if a panel review determines an application is not in condition for appeal. Although this procedure will not be appropriate in every appealed application, in the proper situations it can save both the resources of the applicant and the Office. Applicants continue to have available to them the normal practice and procedures already in effect under Part 41 of the Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations relating to appeals and practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

有關此Pre-Appeal的資訊:
  1. 目前通常是經過兩次核駁(1st OA, Final OA)之後,可進入訴願階段
  2. 申請人通常先遞交notice of appeal
  3. 兩個月內,申請人應提出appeal brief與費用
  4. 此階段時間可延展
  5. Pre-Appeal即提供申請人在提出Appeal brief之前,先由審查委員組成的專門小組(the panel)進行審閱
  6. 目的是:
    (1)辨明審查書是否有不適當的核駁內容,比如法條錯誤、事實認定錯誤等;
    (2)辨明是否核駁理由缺少應有的訊息
  7. 如果申請人認為核駁理由中有明顯不適當或是缺少基礎的審查意見,可提出Pre-Appeal,包括引用法條錯誤、明顯沒有核駁基礎、專利範圍解釋錯誤、前案引用錯誤等
  8. 於此專門小組審視審查意見後,將回應一書面答覆
  9. 此Pre-Appeal應伴隨著Notice of Appeal提出,可於提出後兩個月內再提出Appeal Brief
  10. 如果提出pre-appeal期間又遞交以下申請,此Pre-Appeal程序將終止
    - an appeal brief
    - a request for continued examination (RCE)
    - an after-final amendment
    - an affidavit or other evidence
    - an express abandonment
  11. 提出「Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review」,格式如PTO/SB/33
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0033.pdf
  12. 五頁以下的內容
  13. 此程序不能伴隨提出專利說明書、範圍的修正
  14. 內容應該清楚表明審查意見錯誤之處,還有審查委員缺少提出核駁的該有的元件
    . clear errors in the examiner's rejections; or
    . the examiner's omissions of one or more essential elements needed for a prima facie rejection.
  15. 當申請人提出Pre-Appeal後,USPTO將會:
    . 技術中心指導人(Technology Center Art Unit supervisor)將會指派相關技術審查人員成立專門小組
    . 專門小組包括一位指導人(supervisor)與審查委員
    . 申請人無法加入,也無法要求面詢
    . 審閱申請人的議論與審查委員的核駁理由(包括提出的證據)
    . 專門小組將決定是否有訴願的必要
    . 45天內寄出決定
    . 寄出的決定有結論:維持原核駁理由、撤回核駁理由、駁回或是核准專利範圍
  16. 寄出的決定可能有:
    . 其中至少有個確實符合訴願的正確事實
    . 重啟爭議程序(prosecution),此時,可能有個修正建議也隨著決定寄出,甚至發出可准予專利的指示
    . 目前有的範圍可核准,則此爭議程序即關閉
    . 有不符要求的地方,此Pre-Appeal請求消失
  17. 其他規定:
    . 申請人需自行確認準時送達
    . 不能提出補充理由
    . Notice of Appeal不能退費
    . Pre-Appeal的請求若於notice of appeal之後發出,不受理
    . 不能提出請願(petition)
    . 專門小組的決定不能被請願(not petitionable)
    . 若申請人不滿決定內容,則應繼續訴願程序
    . 在提出Pre-Appeal之後,並出appeal brief之後,如有新的爭點或證據,審查委員保留重啟爭議程序或是核准申請案的選擇
資料來源:USPTO
Ron

2008年12月20日 星期六

韓國專利檢索筆記

英文頁
http://eng.kipris.or.kr/
他們有新舊兩種檢索頁面
但是應該是大同小異,倒是檢索結果顯示的方式有點不同


結果產生有個縮圖,這可以增進檢索的方便性,還不錯


看似有提供英文內容
結果都是要錢的,還不少,就依需要來使用吧!至少比人工翻譯便宜太多


其實還是有提供一些可擷取的韓文文字檔
這是就可以複製去用一些工具來翻譯,至少可以初步瞭解該技術


也有pdf檔,真是一個字都看不懂


Ron

K2E-PAT service

韓文難懂,又很少人學
所以在檢索韓文專利時,非常不方便
除了一些需要付費的資料庫可以針對「英文版韓文摘要」檢索外
一般可透過一些電子翻譯軟體或是Google Translate的工具來翻譯韓文也是個方法
雖不中,亦不遠矣

韓國專利局提出一個線上機器翻譯的服務,是個商業服務
並非免費,但可於一特定時間內免費使用

但是,看他的範例,蠻美的,有必要時可參考使用

經翻譯後,可下載PDF檔


Ron

2008年12月18日 星期四

提交IDS的案例

這件案子是提出申請案後
沒有收到任何核駁理由,即於一年半後獲准
一般人看到核准通知很開心
馬上就去繳錢領證

請參考以下程序:


但這位申請人似乎找到一些前案,又基於誠實的原則(應該是),於核准通之後提出一次IDS,表格中可瞭解提出的前案為何:


並搭配一次RCE提出(雖然是冒險,卻是更保險),RCE的申請書中有勾選IDS


之後這案還是順利核准並領證,多了一次IDS與RCE,讓這專利具有更好的確據

Ron

MPEP 609 - Information Disclosure Statement

Information Disclosure Statement(IDS)通常是在提出美國專利申請案時提出,發明人有義務提出發明的相關資料,包括檢索到的前案、公開資料,甚至不相關的內容,審查委員都會納入審查考慮,如果在審查過程中發現到有些相關的前案(比該案申請日或是優先權日早的案子),包括別的國家的相對申請案的審查意見或是引證案,都要誠實遞交給美國專利局,否則可能會產生申請的瑕疵。

MPEP 609 規範了Information Disclosure Statement(IDS)的申請與內容

其中引用37 CFR 1.97的規定-Filing of information disclosure statement.
  1. (a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of a patent to have an information disclosure statement in compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Office during the pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement must satisfy one of paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section.
    (a) 在專利申請案審查中,申請人有義務提出information disclosure statement(IDS),IDS應符合本段(b), (c), (d)的規定

  2. (b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant within any one of the following time periods:
    (b) 申請人在以下幾種時間內提出IDS,專利局應須於審查中考慮IDS
    (1) 自美國國內申請案申請日後3個月內 (2) 國際申請案進入美國國家階段的時間後3個月內 (3) 在專利局提出第一次審查意見(first Office Action)前 (4) 在RCE的程序中,發出RCE後第一次審查意見前

  3. (c) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed after the period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is filed before the mailing date of any of a final action under § 1.113, a notice of allowance under § 1.311, or an action that otherwise closes prosecution in the application, and it is accompanied by one of:
    (c) 如果在上述(b)中所規定時間後,申請人才提出IDS,仍應考慮IDS,只要在最終審定書(Final Office Action)發出之前,或是核准通知之前(notice of allowance),或是其他關閉爭議程序(close prosecution)的動作之前,但要伴隨如本段(e)的聲明,並產生費用

  4. (d) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant after the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is filed on or before payment of the issue fee and is accompanied by:
    (d) 如果申請人在如上述(c)所規定的時間之後提出IDS,要在繳領證費當時,或是之前提出,但也要伴隨有如本段(e)的聲明,還有費用

  5. (e) A statement under this section must state either:
    (e) 上述聲明應要提出以下內容之一:
    (1) 內容包括,在提出IDS前三個月內,提出第一次在國外專利局所提出該相對申請案的引證案
    (2) 包括告知在國外專利局並無提出相對此美國申請案的引證案

  6. (f) No extensions of time for filing an information disclosure statement are permitted under § 1.136. If a bona fide attempt is made to comply with § 1.98, but part of the required content is inadvertently omitted, additional time may be given to enable full compliance.
    (f) IDS提出的時機並不能延期,但是針對非故意的事件(誠實的要求下),仍是可以要求額外的時間

  7. (g) An information disclosure statement filed in accordance with section shall not be construed as a representation that a search has been made.
    (g) 符合上述條件所提出IDS的動作並不能解釋為已作了檢索

  8. (h) The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b).
    (h) 提出IDS並不能解釋所採用的引證內容,或是於審查時已考慮,而作為可專利性的依據

  9. (i) If an information disclosure statement does not comply with either this section or § 1.98, it will be placed in the file but will not be considered by the Office.
    (i) 若IDS並無符合上述各規定,則不會被專利局列入審查時的考慮

再引用37 CFR 1.98的規定-Content of information disclosure statement.,有關IDS的內容

  1. (a) Any information disclosure statement filed under § 1.97 shall include the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
    (a) 提出的IDS需包括本段(a)(1),(a)(2)與(a)(3)所規定的內容
    (1) A list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications must be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents. Each page of the list must include:
    (a)(1) 提出列出所有專利、公開資料、申請案或是其他訊息給美國專利局,若是提出美國專利申請公開案,則以另一文件列舉,每一頁需包括有:
    (i) 申請號
    (ii) 文件中,各行有間隔
    (iii) 標示各IDS的標題
    (a)(2) A legible copy of:
    (a)(2) 應提出各國外專利、公開案(或其一部份)、未公開的美國申請案(或其一部份,包括claims、圖示),或是其他資訊(或其一部份)等清楚易讀的副本
    (a)(3)
    (i) 以英文簡要解釋IDS(包括專利案、公開案或是其他資料)資料中與申請案的相關性
    (ii) 針對非英文的文件提出英文翻譯,或是部份翻譯
    [原文]
    (i) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from applicant's specification or incorporated therein.
    (ii) A copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).
  2. (b)
    (b)(1) 每一個列於IDS的美國專利應詳列發明人、專利號與公告日
    (1) Each U.S. patent listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by inventor, patent number, and issue date.
    (b)(2) 每個列於IDS的美國專利公開案應詳列申請人、專利公開號與公開日
    (2) Each U.S. patent application publication listed in an information disclosure statement shall be identified by applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date.
    (b)(3) 每個列於IDS的美國申請案應詳列發明人、申請號與申請日
    (3) Each U.S. application listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by the inventor, application number, and filing date.
    (b)(4) 每一個列於IDS的國外專利或是公開的國外專利申請案應詳列國家或是專利局、文件號碼、公開日等
    (4) Each foreign patent or published foreign patent application listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by the country or patent office which issued the patent or published the application, an appropriate document number, and the publication date indicated on the patent or published application.
    (b)(5) 每一個列於IDS的公開資料應列出公開者、作者、名稱、公開資料中的有關頁面、日期、與公開地點
    (5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
其他規定:
  • 在不需經過實際審查的臨時申請案(Provisional application)中,不需提出IDS
  • 在非臨時申請案的申請案中,申請人有義務提出有關專利性的相關資訊,以作為該案審查的準備與日後的爭議上(prosecution)
  • 除了申請人以外的第三人並不能提出IDS,但可向專利局提出公開的專利與申請案
  • 有關未公開申請案的第三人亦可提交未公開專利申請案給專利局
  • 任何在核准通知前提出的資料會被審查委員列入考慮
  • 可提出多次IDS
[部份原文]
Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) are not permitted in provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b). See 37 CFR 1.51(d). Since no substantive examination is given in provisional applications, a disclosure of information is unnecessary. Any such statement filed in a provisional application will be returned or destroyed at the option of the Office.

In nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 provide a mechanism by which patent applicants may comply with the duty of disclosure provided in 37 CFR 1.56. Applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the patent application also may want the Office to consider information for a variety of other reasons; e.g., to make sure that the examiner has an opportunity to consider the same information that was considered by these individuals, or by another patent office in a counterpart or related patent application filed in another country.

Third parties (individuals not covered by 37 CFR 1.56(c)) cannot file information disclosure statements under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Third parties may only submit patents and publications in compliance with 37 CFR 1.99 in applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See MPEP § 1134.01. For unpublished, pending applications, any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291 prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under 37 CFR 1.311. See MPEP Chapter 1900. Alternatively, third parties may provide information to the applicant who may submit the information to the Office in an IDS. See 37 CFR 1.56(d). The Office will review any improper IDS filed by a third party to determine whether the submission is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.99. The Office will discard any submission that is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.99, before the application is forwarded to the examiner for examination.

An information disclosure statement filed in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner assigned to the application. Individuals associated in a substantive way with the filing and prosecution of a patent application are encouraged to submit information to the Office so the examiner can evaluate its relevance to the claimed invention. The procedures for submitting an information disclosure statement under the rules are designed to encourage individuals to submit information to the Office promptly and in a uniform manner. These rules provide certainty for the public by defining the requirements for submitting information disclosure statements to the Office so that the Office will consider information contained therein before a patent is granted.

當提出IDS後,審查委員將會依循以上規定判斷適法與否?或可利用以下顯示的check list判斷


Ron

2008年12月17日 星期三

德國專利局news

德國專利局消息,消息來源:BETTEN & RESCH

德國專利局決定簡化一些專利上的程序,包括專利訴願(Appeal)的程序減半,其中:
  1. 加速無效的程序

    在原本的無效程序上,是由聯邦專利法院(Federal Patents Court)與最高法院(Federal Supreme Court)決定專利是否無效。

    在原先程序中,專利法院應明確指出所作的決定的相關實質問題,但並不會對無效申請人提出意見有足夠細節的討論,而且無效申請人需隨時注意專利法院的動作,再提出意見,在進行口頭審理(oral proceedings)前如有新的意見則不會被採用,這些細節都會延長無效程序的時間(可能會長到4年)。

    而目前新修正的程序希望能將進入聯邦最高法院前的時間壓縮到2年,省略將原本在訴願階段引入專家(expert)證人的程序,除非有必要。

    在新的程序修正中,專利無效將會是一個新的程序,也會對無效申請人提出的理由重新審理,對於法院決定的訴願將僅針對法律程序是否有瑕疵來審查,這樣的改變之前已在民事程序上獲得成功。自此,專利權人、競爭對手與公眾將會很快知道該無效結果是否已收到法律上的支持。

  2. 簡化職務上發明的程序

    職務上發明佔所有發明申請案的80%左右

    在舊的規定中,為了保障在職務上發明,勞資雙法簽署的Assignment是符合勞工約聘契約,其中同意有適當地回饋給員工。

    勞資雙方需要交換幾個具有不同時間限制的書面聲明(四個月內),如果雇主沒有在受雇員工提出發明後四個月內提出書面聲明,則會有問題。

    但在新的程序中,並非需要「書面」聲明,而是在職務上發明後,Assignment「自動」在四個月後生效,除非雇主在更早時提出放棄。

Ron

2008年12月16日 星期二

美國專利法第251條 - Reissue

Reissue(中文可翻為再領證),是指美國專利核准領證後,若有瑕疵、錯誤、或專利權人認為有必要修正、修正/限縮專利範圍,都可提出reissue程序,然原母案即使已經核准,仍會進入另一次實質審查,之後核准的專利案號會產生以RE為首的另一個號碼

在專利法35USC251則規定,可於領證後兩年內提出實質擴大範圍的申請專利範圍,但仍不能超出原說明書的技術範圍
[原文]
§251. Reissue of defective patents Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
若已領證專利有瑕疵、或是想要修正/新增較大或較小的專利範圍,在沒有new matter的原則下可以提出reissue申請案

The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
可以對一件已領證的專利案提出多個reissue申請案

The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
兩年內可以提出擴大範圍的reissue申請案,否則不予專利

舉個案例:
蘋果電腦公司的RE40,153(2008年3月18日公告,申請於2005年5月27日)專利案,是個有名的多點觸控再領證專利案:
Multi-touch system and method for emulating modifier keys via fingertip chords


原來母案是US6,570,557(2003年5月27日公告,申請於2001年)
母案僅獲得11項專利範圍
從時間點可以看出來,Apple在原母案公告後兩年的最後一天提出reissue,能夠『擴大』原申請專利範圍

名稱沒變:MULTI-TOUCH SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EMULATING MODIFIER KEYS VIA FINGERTIP CHORDS

主要專利範圍第1項也沒有變,但範圍就是不夠好:
1. A multi-touch surface apparatus that interprets 4-finger chords performed concurrently with other input activity as modifiers of that input activity, thereby avoiding awkward thumb or pinky reaches for conventional modifier keys, reducing hand strain and reducing the tendency of hands to drift off of home row, the apparatus comprising:
multiple-touch sensing means that reports the locations and times of finger contacts with a surface;
modifier configuration means that establishes modifier zones as horizontal bands across the surface and associates each modifier zone with one or more modifier types;
synchronization detection means that scans for modifier chord touchdowns consisting of substantially simultaneous touches by four and no more than four digits of a hand;
modifier zone selection means that selects modifier types for the chord according to which modifier zones said simultaneous touches fall within;
chord cancellation means that cancels a modifier chord if the remaining unsynchronized digit from its hand touches before other modifiable input activity commits the chord;
modifier applicability search means that commits the modifier chord and sends modifier press signals corresponding to the chord's selected modifier types to a host computer upon detection of
modifiable input activity that occurs substantially between touchdown and liftoff of the modifier chord; and,
chord liftoff detection means that reports when none of the digits originally constituting the modifier chord are touching the surface and sends modifier release signals to the host computer accordingly.

相對的Reissue申請案則增加了不少範圍,先是增加了Claims 12-24的申請範圍,之後又增加到46
項,之後USPTO有發出一個Final Rejection,聲明Claims 1-11,13-21,23-37,39-41,43-46可核准,其他的並未符合112的規定,最後經提出Notice of Appeal,附帶修正與刪除,順利獲得專利

核准後,經重新編排項目編號,成功地增加了一些「擴大」的「方法」與其他特別的裝置的申請專利範圍,其中元件明顯變少(實質範圍擴大),主要項如:
12.A method of controlling a modifier on a multi-touch surface having a key layout thereon, the method comprising:
activating the modifier by simultaneously dropping a plurality of fingertips of a hand into a modifier zone on or near a home row of the key layout; and
maintaining activation of the modifier by leaving at least one of the plurality of fingertips in contact with the modifier zone.

17. A multi-touch surface having embodied thereon a key layout, the key layout comprising
at least one modifier zone on or near a home row of the key layout wherein a modifier will be activated by the simultaneous touchdown of a plurality of fingertips within the at least one modifier zone and maintained by leaving at least one of the plurality of fingertips in contact with the modifier zone.

20. A method of processing incoming signals from a multi-touch surface, the method comprising:
detecting modifier chords by monitoring the incoming touch sequence for simultaneous touchdowns of a plurality of fingertips of a hand within one or more predetermined modifier zones; and,
if a new modifier chord is detected: allocating a corresponding modifier state data structure; and appending the modifier state data structure to a modifier chord state chain; and
checking for cancellation of a modifier chord; and,
if cancellation of a modifier chord is detected: recording either a modifier chord liftoff time or modifier chord cancellation.

22. A multi-touch surface apparatus comprising:
a multi-touch surface that reports the locations and times of finger contacts with a surface;
a synchronization detector that scans for modifier chord touchdowns consisting of substantially simultaneous touches by a plurality of digits of a hand in a pre-defined modifier zone on the multi-touch surface and sends modifier signals accordingly; and
a chord liftoff detector that reports when none of the digits originally constituting the modifier chord are touching the surface and sends modifier release signals accordingly.

40. A multi-touch surface apparatus comprising:
a multi-touch surface that reports the locations and times of finger contacts with a surface;
a synchronization detector that scans for modifier chord touchdowns consisting of substantially simultaneous touches by a predetermined combination of digits of a hand in a predetermined arrangement;
finger arrangement matcher that selects a modifier corresponding to the modifier chord and sends modifier signals accordingly; and
a chord liftoff detector that reports when none of the digits originally constituting the modifier chord are touching the surface and sends modifier release signals accordingly.

我覺得,此案例告訴我們幾件事:
  1. 美國的reissue給專利權人極大的保障
  2. reissue雖有風險(應又會經過另一次實際審查,有被核駁的風險),但仍是十分有用,尤其是能夠「擴大」核准後的申請專利範圍
  3. 原說明書應要寫得完整,即使申請時不確定是否有價值,但是經過幾年後,會發現可核准的範圍應該是怎樣的
  4. 只有美國有reissue的方案,花錢就有
reissue的規定:另根據35USC252有關reissue的效果的規定:
  1. 原母案將被放棄
  2. reissued的案子如有與母案實質相同的專利範圍,在法律上有相同效果的保護效果,相同的專利權期限
  3. reissued內核准的範圍不能限制或是影響在reissue核准前已經進行相關技術的製造、提供販賣、美國境內使用、進口的行為
  4. 但以上行為仍會被判斷侵害reissued案中已經在母案核准的範圍
  5. 在reissue核准之後仍從事相關技術的製造、使用、販賣、進口核准前已有的商品,仍會產生侵權的問題,但法院為了公平起見,會給予適當保護
Ron