Afresh, it is about "classifying" the applied patent.
It is about "classifying" the applied patent.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LJ4gQQeJA90NRHarZAphX_XDcdcalfO5/view?usp=sharing
It is about "classifying" the applied patent.
(1) "Classification Rules", (2) "Explanation", (3) "Principles of Classification", and (4) "Recommendation for Labeling in Gazettes".
In addition, I also included "digression". I think that both "FI" and "F-term" are given to the "technical subject matter" described in the [claim] of the patent specification by the Patent Office, to some extent correctly.
In addition, it seems that "F-term" is given to some extent in the "technical point of view" described in the 〖full text〗 corresponding to (linked to) this "technical subject".
However, the current situation is that the "technical viewpoint" described in the [full text] corresponding to (linked to) this "technical subject" is insufficiently assigned with "FI".
On the other hand, there are many cases where "F-term" is given to "simple technical viewpoints" described in [the full text] that do not correspond to (or are not linked to) the "technical subject".
Regarding this "simple technical point of view", even if there is no assigned classification (even if "F-term" is not assigned), or if it is not assigned, it is convenient for creating a "search logic expression". will be split.
The current situation is that there are too many classifications of "F-terms" for "mere technical viewpoints", causing confusion.
There is no distinction between "technical viewpoints" corresponding to (related to) "technical subjects" and "mere technical viewpoints" not corresponding to (not related to) "technical subjects", and they are enumerated in the "application information"
It has been. For "merely technical viewpoints", "prior art searches" are sufficiently possible using "search terms" (so-called "texts") as necessary.
I believe this is necessary for granting pre-2004 non-textual images of patent specifications.
Also, part of the specification is an image material (for example, the attached table is an image), and the "technical viewpoint" described in this is linked to the "technical subject" described in the [claim].
I think that it is necessary to give "FI" and "F term" in cases were.
In short, we think that "classification" (FI and F terms) should be limited only to "technical subjects" and corresponding (linked) "technical viewpoints".
Furthermore, the "examiner's free word" is tonchinkan.
Does the examiner use this "examiner's free word" to create a [search logic expression]?
In some cases, there is "Others" in the [F-term], and a "term" such as "examiner's free word" is described in this.
These "terms" give you a little idea of what the examiner is thinking about
(searching).
(Just a side note.)
This is about the "prior art search" conducted by examiners at the European Patent Office and the United States Patent Office.
Examiners in the above countries create a search logical formula using a hybrid search formula (search term + CPC) for "technical subjects" in the same category to obtain the mother set of the research target. Is it?
I don't think they are doing something similar to the so-called (search) that examiners at the Japanese Patent Office do.
The (search) conducted by examiners at the Japanese Patent Office is a trivialized and distorted version of the correct "prior art search."
（ハッシュタグ）
#INPIT #JPlatPat #note #生成AI #OpenAI #note連続更新 #noteクリエイター #Claude #note毎日 #深層学習 #note日記 #note更新 #noteサークル #仕事 #金子吉友 #仕事のポリシー #仕事論 #ディープラーニング #仕事の話 #仕事内容 #仕事の仕方 #仕事とは #仕事のコツ #ビジネス #ビジネススキル #ビジネスモデル #ビジネスチャンス #知財 #知財戦略 #知財塾 #知的財産 #知的財産権 #知的財産高等裁判所 #特許 #特許調査 #特許法 #特許庁 #特許事務所 #特許分類 #特許検索 #特許分析 #特許情報 #特許権者 #特許無効審判 #専利 #分類付与 #先行技術調査 #無効資料調査 #侵害調査 #侵害予防調査 #パテント #発明 #発明塾 #どうする特許庁 #検索論理式 #審査官 #審判官 #AI #AIの活かし方 #AI画像生成 #IT #ITエンジニア #IT業界 #IT企業 #ITベンチャー #IT化 #IT系 #ITリテラシー #ITツール #DX #DX化 #DX推進 #DX人材 #DX事例 #DXリテラシー #Patent #ChatGPT #GPT #チャットGPT #ChatGPT4 #Gemini #Threads #bing #bingAI #VertexAI #一月万冊 #裁判所 #出願情報 #東京地方裁判所
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？