智權報總覽 > 法規解析           
 
美國專利快速審查制度
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
中文翻譯:黃少瑜/北美智權教育訓練處設計專利工程師暨研究員

筆者之前寫過關於「如何使用專利快速審查獲證/駁回答辯」的文章,這些文章對於專利申請者將有些用處。筆者還舉了各種例子,例如在各歐洲專利局如何用最小成本實現各種可用的加速方案。這是因為歐洲專利局樂於促進消化專利申請案的庫存,也相信支持快速審查,可以儘快幫助企業保護其有價值的智慧財產。最經典的例子是,一個人若沒有被授予專利就無法據以起訴任何人,而且根據各國法律,在真正授權之前,藉由專利公開而暫時受到保護的專利權人,在權利行使上是受到限制的。

美國專利局也有在類似的基礎上制定專利加速審查制度,主要是要幫助企業以及減少專利申請案的積壓。有些制度現在已經停止了,而其他制度則在AIA中引進。目前施行的制度包括: 「加速審查」(Accelerated Examination,AE)、「優先審查」(Prioritized Examination,PE) 和「專利審查高速公路」(Patent Prosecution Highway prioritized examination,PPH)。

這三種制度各有不同的利弊。因此,了解三個之中哪一個是最適合哪些特定的專利申請案會是很有用的,因為其中可能會有很多種變化。

加速審查(AE)制度

加速審查(AE)制度是在2006年成立的,相對而言它是其中設置較久的制度,從當時演變至今仍然存在。這個制度的目標是要在12個月內審查(處置)完發明的可專利性。其最主要的優點是相對便宜—它的費用少於優先審查費用的10%。缺點則是這個制度規定了非常嚴格的申請人條件,包含一些專利申請程序上的要求,例如電詢答辯的限制,和限縮答辯獨立請求項內從屬請求項的可專利性。這個制度最主要的缺點是,申請人必須提出先前技術檢索報告(整合到IDS),其中必須說明使用的搜索方法(即搜索字串),並且需要說明在先前技術下,該申請案如何具有可專利性。此外還需要額外的費用,以及申請人部分的額外作業,也要考慮其對於所獲得美國專利權的效益與影響,因為申請人於審查期間的聲明,都可能被用來限制獲證的專利權利範圍,而且在這些過程中,可能會被發現自己並沒有滿足在面對美國專利局時,人們被要求必須隨時保持的完全揭露、坦率和誠實。

優先審查(PE)

優先審查(PE)則是由AIA導入的制度,這個制度與其它專利局的「優先審查快速通道」(fast-track prioritized examination)很相似。主要的優點是可以在12月內完成審查(處置),而不需要負擔加速審查的申報義務。而它還規定了一些關於專利申請程序的限制,例如修改超出所請之請求項項數就會實質終止加速審查,不過至少其需滿足專利審查程序的要求,對於最後獲得的專利之有效性帶來的風險會較小。而主要的缺點則是其費用昂貴—目前是大約4,800美元。

專利審查高速公路(PPH)制度

優先審查最顯著的一個特點是,我們並不能從PCT來利用它申請美國專利,可能是因為專利審查高速公路(PPH)制度才是可用於這類型申請案的制度。PPH是一個國際性的制度,能否於USPTO使用PPH制度,會在許多細節上,取決於是由哪個國家來的申請案而不相同。例如,從TIPO或是SIPO來的申請案,其可專利性報告中,至少有一個對應請求項要具有正面的結果,美國PPH制度才會接受該案。另一個主要的優點是,使用該制度本身並不需要額外費用,不過您還是要繳付最起碼的翻譯費用與形式審查所需的基本申請費用。它雖沒有嚴格的USPTO執行期日,不過USPTO有規定專利審查程序必須在PPH提出申請的兩個月內開始執行。許多學者質疑PPH制度的價值,不過USPTO的數據統計則顯示,這個制度的確加速了專利審查過程,至少有些案子是如此,而且對於申請案獲得美國授予專利的可能性,也有正面的影響。

其他一般申請人較會使用的制度是美國的「首次審查意見面詢」(First-Action Interview Program)。它主要的目的是透過請求進行一個與USPTO審查委員的初步電詢,讓雙方針對主要爭點可以獲得一個建設性的結論來加速審查,而不是藉由回覆各個陸續發出的審查意見通知書來做核駁與答辯。而且,它並不需要額外的費用,是很受歡迎的一個加速審查方法,這是因為透過統計資料顯示,它對於專利被授予的機率與審查的速度,都能有很正面的影響。可惜的是,這個制度在2012年已經終止了,許多專利從業者仍然希望USPTO能夠儘快重啟這個制度。

總結一下,從以上主要觀點來看,筆者自己的建議如下:目前最好的選擇是專利審查高速公路(PPH)制度。如果這是不可行的,那麼應該考慮使用優先審查制度與其花費,而不是冒風險去選擇加速審查制度(除非您真的非常確定您的申請案是具有可專利性的)。然而,要提醒讀者的重點是,以上只是一般的經驗法則,選擇加速審查制度時,還是需要仔細思考,您最好還是透過熟悉各種制度者來認真考量與選擇這些選項。

 

 
作者: 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任: 北美智權教育訓練處 /歐洲專利律師
經歷: Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系,生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院,智財管理碩士

 


Speedy prosecution before the USPTO
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

I have previously written about the conditions in which a speedy prosecution to grant/rejection may be useful for the patent applicant. I have also used the various programs available in the various European offices as example of how to achieve this at relatively minimal costs. This is because European patent offices are keen to expedite the patent backlog and believe that supporting a speedy prosecution may help businesses in achieving worthwhile IP protection as soon as possible. The most classic example is that one cannot sue anybody without a patent first being granted and any provisional protection granted to the patent proprietor by publication of a patent application is limited according to national Law until its grant.

The USPTO has also instituted programs on a similar basis – to help businesses and to reduce the backlog of patent applications being the main reason. Some programs have now been terminated and other have been introduced through the AIA. These are those that are generally available at present: Accelerated Examination (AE), Prioritized Examination (PE) and using the Patent Prosecution Highway prioritized examination (PPH).

These three programs have different advantages and drawbacks. It is thus useful to know which one of the three is most applicable to a specific patent application as these could vary.

AE was a program set up relatively long ago, in 2006. It has evolved since then and is still running. Its goal is to reach a decision on the patentability of the invention claimed within 12 months (disposition). The main advantage is that it is relatively cheap – its fee is less than 10% of PE. The disadvantage of the system is that it imposes very stringent conditions on the applicant which include on patent prosecution such as having to reply to restriction requirements on the telephone and limitations on arguing patentability of dependent claims with respect to independent claims. The main disadvantage is that the applicant has to file a search of prior art carried out by the applicant (integrated into the IDS), where the search methodology (search strings) used has to be explained, and also an explanation of how the claims are patentable with respect to such prior art. Above the fact that this requires extra expense and work on the part of the applicant, one must also consider its utility in obtaining a granted US Patent since an applicant’s statement during prosecution can be used in limiting the granted claim scope and how such actions may find themselves falling foul of the duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith that one must maintain at all time before the USPTO.

PE was introduced by the AIA and is much more similar to a classical fast-track prioritized examination available in other patent offices. The main advantage is that it should reach disposition within 12 months also and does not impose the declaratory requirements of AE. It also imposes restrictions on prosecution, such as amending out of claim number effectively terminates accelerated prosecution, but at least the prosecution requirements to be satisfied pose less risk to the validity of the patent afterwards. Its main disadvantage is that it is expensive – currently about $4800.

One notable point about PE is that one cannot apply for it for US application deriving from a PCT. The reason for this may be that PPH program is available for this type of US application. PPH is an international program and the availability of using such a program with the USPTO vary on the details of the country the application derives from. A positive patentability report on at least one corresponding claim from TIPO or SIPO are acceptable to qualify for the PPH at the USPTO. Another major advantage of such a system is that it does not require a fee, but there are some minimal translation and formality filing costs. There is not strict deadline for the USPTO to issue disposition, but prosecution should be started within 2 months of the PPH request being accepted by the USPTO. Some commentators doubt the value of PPH in obtaining a positive examination, but the statistics available at the USPTO show that this system certainly speeds up prosecution and, at least in some cases, also has a positive effect on the probability of obtaining a granted US patent.

Another program that was popular was the USPTO First-Action Interview Program. Its main purpose was to speed up prosecution by requesting a preliminary telephone interview with the USPTO Examiner and using this possibility to reach a constructive conclusion on the main issues, as opposed to carrying this out by replying to multiple Office Actions. It did not require extra fees and was popular because, as the statistics showed, it had a positive effect on both the probability of having the patent application granted and on the speed of prosecution. Unfortunately the program was terminated in 2012 and many practitioners hope that the USPTO will revive the program again.

To conclude, from the main points explained above, it is this author’s opinion that the best option to access speedy prosecution before the USPTO at present is applying for the PPH prioritized system if this is possible. If this is not possible, then one should consider the cost of PE as opposed to the risks involved in applying for AE (which should really only be done when one is very sure of the patentability of one’s invention). It is however important to remind the reader that the above are general rules of thumb and choosing which program to apply for should require some serious thought, possibly by somebody well-acquainted with the various option available.

 

 
Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences: European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO

 


Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團