Inventive Step in Japan Masashi Moriwaki

Similar documents
Examination Guidelines for Patentability - Novelty and Inventive Step. Shunsuke YAMAMOTO Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office 2016.

Criteria for Patentability

Inventive Step of Invention

"Grace Period" in Japan

Major Differences Between Prosecution at EPO and JPO

should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art

Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO

Examination Procedure. Japan Patent Office

Intellectual Property High Court

Aug.2014 JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office

Overview of Trial for Invalidation and Opposition Systems in Japan. March 2017 Trial and Appeal Department Japan Patent Office

FICPI & AIPLA Colloquium, June 2007 A Comprehensive Approach to Patent Quality

Patent Prosecution Procedures: China & Canada Compared

Outline of the Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model. Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office

Foundation Certificate

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford October 19, 2016 Class 13 Nonobviousness: Scope and Content of the Prior Art. Recap

Overview of recent trends in patent regimes in United States, Japan and Europe

Third Party Observations, Oppositions & Invalidation Trials of Patents in Japan

KSR. Managing Intellectual Property May 30, Rick Frenkel Cisco Systems Kevin Rhodes 3M Kathi Kelly Lutton F&R John Dragseth F&R

EFFECTS OF KSR ON PATENT PRACTICE

Post-grant opposition system in Japan.

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar

Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Final Rules

JETRO seminar. Recent Rule change and latest developments at the EPO:

Patent protection in Latin America: Main provisions and recommended strategy

Inventive Step in Korea

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -

SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO. Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney

Fordham 2008 Comparative Obviousness

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness

LESSONS WE CAN LEARN FROM PRIOR USER RIGHTS IN JAPAN

Patent Law & Nanotechnology: An Examiner s Perspective. Eric Woods MiRC Technical Staff

Patent Infringement Litigation Case Study (1)

Restrictions-permissible number and timing of divisional applications

Practical Advice For International Patenting

FC3 (P5) International Patent Law 2 FINAL Mark Scheme 2017

Royal Society of Chemistry Law Group. Recent Case Law Relevant to Chemistry

Novelty. Japan Patent Office

Examination Matters 2017 Webinars

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees

Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art

How the USPTO Rules Implement the AIA: Prosecution Strategies and Tips. by Andrew D. Meikle Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch LLP

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)

Outline of PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination PCT Workshop Tokyo February 27-March

Basic Legal Questions for Pre-Exam and Paper D

PCT procedure before the EPO as International Authority. Camille-Rémy Bogliolo Head, Department of PCT Affairs

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Normal Examination Speed (2/2)

In the Wake of KSR: Sea Change or Wait-and-See?

Topic 1: Challenges and Options in Substantive Patent Examination. Lutz Mailänder Head, International Cooperation on Examination and Training Section

I. Introduction In recent years, there has been an increasing need for obtaining patent rights in foreign countries where manufacturing hubs and

Updates of JPO Initiatives

THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS FICPI AUSTRALIA

Guidebook. for Japanese Intellectual Property System 2 nd Edition

PCT developments. U.S. Bar-EPO Partnership for Quality meeting

Where to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO

Unity of inventions at the EPO - Amendments to rule 29 EPC

Users Guide to the Automated Gates (For Foreign Nationals)

Patent and License Overview. Kirsten Leute, Senior Associate Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford University

In Re Klein F.3D 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Introduction to Patent Prosecution Highway JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion?

Inventive Step and Non-obviousness: Global Perspectives

Drafting, Filing and Processing of PCT Applications

Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention

Review of Current Status of Post-Grant Opposition System in Comparison with Invalidation Trial System

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: August 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Latest Trends & Strategies for Applicants

Industry IP5 Consensus Proposals to the IP5 Patent Harmonization Experts Panel (PHEP)

KSR International Co., v. Teleflex Inc. U.S. Supreme Court, April 2007

Outline of the Patent Examination

Chief Judge of the IP High Court Makiko Takabe

Patent Prosecution in Multiple Countries. Alessandro Steinfl U.S. and EP Patent Attorney

The Benefits of Enhanced Transparency for the Effectiveness of Monetary and Financial Policies. Carl E. Walsh *

BOARDS OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE. DECISION of 7 July 2005

Correction of Patents

International IP Rights Tips and Tricks International Trade-mark Applications

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal

Annex 2 DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS AND FOR STATISTICS ON PROCEDURES

Speed of processing at the EPO. Timely delivery of quality products

RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EPO REGARDING SOFTWARE/BUSINESS METHOD- RELATED INVENTIONS

Patent Exam Fall 2015

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is

IP Part IV: Patent prosecution

patentees. Patent judgment rules in Japanese legal system In this part, to discuss the patent judgment rules in Japan legal system, we will discuss th

USPTO Programs for Expediting Patent Prosecution: Accelerated Exam, Patent Prosecution Highway, Green Technology. Susan Perng Pan November 2010

Patent Prosecution Procedures under the Japanese Patent Law. Sera, Toyama, Matsukura & Kawaguchi

Added matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222

AIPPI FORUM Berlin. September 25, Session V: Does the EPO grant trivial patents? Should the level of inventive step be increased?

Indonesian Group Answers to Questionnaire

Paper 6 Tel: Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

1. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) fee schedule is changed, effective from. 2. The post-grant opposition system is abolished, and the invalidation trial

Intellectual Property Primer. Tom Utley, PhD, CLP Licensing Officer Patent Agent

Paper 31 Tel: Entered: October 30, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Patent Prosecution Highway JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

THE IP5 OFFICES AND THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

Writing Strong Patent Applications in China. Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited

Transcription:

BEYOND BORDERS Seminar September 4, 2017 Inventive Step in Japan Masashi Moriwaki Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/1312 002_e.htm 1

Overview of JPO Examination Flow Determining Inventive Step in Japan 2

Cf. EPO/USPTO Approach EPO The problem solution approach Could Would Approach (for avoiding Ex post fact analysis) USPTO Graham case Difference between Prior Art in Claim, Level of skill; Secondary Considerations KSR case TSM + Other considerations Basic Idea of Determination of Japan Inventive Step Whether or not it could be reasoned that a person skilled in the art easily arrives at the claimed invention based on the prior art. 3

A person skilled in the art in Japan Includes a Team of Experts (Same as EPO) Has the common general knowledge in the technical field of the claimed invention at the time of filing A person skilled in the art in Japan Can comprehend all the matter in the state of the art in the technical field of the claimed invention 1. at the time of filing, and 2. in the field relevant to problems to be solved by the invention 4

Examination of Inventive Step in Japan Single closest reference for 1. solving a problem in the claimed invention 2. providing reason to combine by following the steps (1) to (4) Step(1): Is it possible to provide any reason based on other pieces of prior art or considering the common general knowledge? Step(2): If it is impossible to provide any reason to combine based on the above step (1), the examiner determines that the claimed invention involves an inventive step. Step(3): If it is possible, the examiner determines whether it is possible to provide any reason to combine by comprehensively assessing various factors which includes factors in support of the existence of an inventive step. Step(4): If the examiner determines that the it is impossible to provide any reason to combine based on the above step (3), the examiner determines that the claimed invention involves an inventive step. Otherwise, the examiner determines that the claimed invention does not involve an inventive step. 5

Detail of Determination of Inventive Step in Japan The examiner should not regard the combination of two or more independent pieces of prior art as the primary prior art Where there are two or more claims, the examiner should determine the existence of an inventive step for each claim. 6

Example 1 Multifunctional Bottle Holder Box (EP2771249/ JP / US ) Removable Edge 7

IPR has positive opinions for Inventive Step Swingler 8

US Prosecution Non Final OA Cited in ISR Swingler (5,285,900) Abandon Olivero (US 2001/0025824) 9

Reference 1 in JP Grant a Patent 20.08.2015 Rejected Abandon Rejected Decision of Rejection 25.10.2016 10

Example 2 WO2012/014058 Cooling Plate A liquid cooling device of an electronic card for Super Computer (Claimed Invention) 11

WO2012/014058 WO2012/014058 hydraulic connectors Switching / Deflector Means (plugs) hydraulic connectors 12

Claim 1 as of International Filing 1. Cooling device with liquid for electronic cards (16), in particular for high performance processing units, comprising at least a hydraulic circuit (13) in which a heat carrying fluid flows in order to extract the heat produced by the electronic components (18) and/or by the hot spots (20) present on at least one associated electronic card (16), characterized in that it comprises a cooling plate (12) made of heat conductive material, and provided with means (43) for mechanical coupling to said electronic card (16) so as to be inserted together therewith in a containing rack (30) for electronic cards of said processing unit, wherein said cooling plate (12) has at least a heat extraction surface (24) directly facing said electronic components (18) and/or said hot spots (20) and at least partly in contact with, or at least in close proximity, in the order of tenths of a millimeter, to said electronic components (18) and/or said hot spots (20), said hydraulic circuit (13) being made in the thickness of said cooling plate (12) and comprising a plurality of hydraulic sub circuits (13a) and switching/deflector means (42) disposed along at least part of said hydraulic sub circuits (13a) in order to define desired paths which can be selectively varied by switching the flow of the fluid in correspondence with the main electronic components (18) and/or with the hot spots (20) of said electronic card (16), and in that said cooling plate (12) has sliding guide means (15) able to cooperate with corresponding alignment means (31) of the containing rack (30) in order to insert/ extract the combined plate(12)/card (16) into/from the rack (30). 13

Inventive Step : Yes 14

Claim 12 EPO JPO switching/deflector means (42) consist of plugs (or similar) EP2599371 (Granted Claim1) 15

Grant a Patent 24.08.2017 Rejection in Japan On Feb.25, 2015 Lack of Inventiveness 16

Rejection in Japan On Feb.25, 2015 IDS filed to the USPTO on June 1, 2015 Rejection in Japan 17

Examiner s Recognition Ref. 1 discloses basic components of cooling devices, except for Switching/deflector means. Ref. 2 discloses Switching/deflector means (42). CLAIM12 is also rejected in Japan in view of Ref. 1 6. Cited Documents in Japan Ref. 1(JPA2004 246615) Ref. 2 Switching / Deflector Means grooves 216, Switching/Deflector means are NOT disposed along at least part of the branches of said hydraulic sub circuits (13a) b/c there were no branches in the cited inventions. 18

Amended Claim 1 in Japan On July.2, 2015 said hydraulic circuit (13) being made in the thickness of said cooling plate (12) and comprising a plurality of hydraulic sub circuits (13a) and switching/deflector means (42) disposed along at least part of the branches of said hydraulic sub circuits (13a) (CLAIM 12) WO2012/014058 hydraulic connectors Switching / Deflector Means hydraulic connectors switching/deflector means (42) disposed along at least part of the branches of said hydraulic sub circuits (13a) 19

Argument 20

Rejection in U.S. On Mar.26, 2015 Amended Claim 1 in U.S. On July.27, 2015 21

CLAIM 5 USPTO JPO Oct. 2 2015 Claim 1 + 5 Notice of Allowance Dec. 28 2015 Notice of Allowance Claim 1 + 12(branches) USPTO examiner has issued a notice of allowance AFTER fully consideration of the cited documents in Japan filed as IDS. JPO examiner has issued a notice of allowance AFTER fully consideration of the US exam result. 22

24.08.2017 Grant a Patent Claim 1 + 12(plugs) Masashi Moriwaki MORIWAKI IP, P.C. Fifth Hase Building 637 Suiginya cho Shimogyo ku Kyoto JAPAN Shinagawa East One Tower 4th Floor 2 16 1 Konan Minato ku Tokyo JAPAN www.moriwakipat.com 23