關於大陸專利商標無效的時程：

關於大陸專利商標無效的時程：

1、專利無效：5-6個月。

2、商標無效：11個月。

3、商標異議：14個月。

“On-Sale Bar(販售合約構成先前技術)”

35 U.S.C. 102 (PRE‑AIA)
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

35 U.S.C. 102
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

新的AIA之102，完整的句子是「in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public」，所以如果用完整的句子來解釋，而不是用斷章取義的方式來解釋的話，「otherwise available to the public」使得「on sale」的用語，有「on public sale」的含義。

在PRE‑AIA前的法案，「on sale in this country」，從前後文來看沒有「on public sale」的含義。以前的最高院的判決也是如此，只要「on sale」就不具新穎性，本案最高院也沒有要改變其解釋方式。

不過，以前的on sale bar有「in this country」的限制，現在新的102已沒有了，不知道以後還會不會有「in this country」的限制？不過，從這個判決來看，應該也沒有要改變on sale bar解釋方式的意思吧。

美國專利復活程序

• 1年內提出復活，官方不會質疑「故意或不可力抗的延遲（impermissible delay）」。

The Office does not generally question whether there has been an intentional or otherwise impermissible delay in filing an initial petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, when such petition is filed: (A) within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the application is abandoned; and (B) within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application. Thus, an applicant seeking revival of an abandoned application is advised to file a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 within 3 months of the first notification that the application is abandoned to avoid the question of intentional delay being raised by the Office (or by third parties seeking to challenge any patent issuing from the application).
Where a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 is not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the application is abandoned, the Office may consider there to be a question as to whether the delay was unintentional. In such instances the Office may require further information as to the cause of the delay between the date the applicant was first notified that the application was abandoned and the date a 37 CFR 1.137 petition was filed, and how such delay was “unintentional.”
To avoid delay in the consideration of the merits of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 in instances in which such petition was not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant was first notified that the application was abandoned, applicants should include a showing as to how the delay between the date the applicant was first notified by the Office that the application was abandoned and the filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 was “unintentional.”

• 超過1年，需要舉證。

Where a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 is “not” filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application (note that abandonment takes place by operation of law, rather than by the mailing of a Notice of Abandonment), the Office may require:
(A) further information as to when the applicant (or the applicant’s representative) first became aware of the abandonment of the application; and
(B) a showing as to how the delay in discovering the abandoned status of the application occurred despite the exercise of due care or diligence on the part of the applicant (or applicant’s representative).
To avoid delay in the consideration of the merits of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 in instances in which such petition was not filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application, applicants should include:
(A) the date that the applicant first became aware of the abandonment of the application; and
(B) a showing as to how the delay in discovering the abandoned status of the application occurred despite the exercise of due care or diligence on the part of the applicant.
Applicant’s failure to carry the burden of proof to establish that the “entire” delay was “unintentional” may lead to the denial of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137, regardless of the circumstances that originally resulted in the abandonment of the application.

==================================

【連結】 Before December 18, 2013, applicants who missed the deadline for responding to an office action but wanted to continue prosecuting their application would have filed a petition to the Commissioner for Patents requesting that the application be reinstated and pay the applicable fee. Sounds simple enough; however, there were two different petitions that could be filed. The first one was a petition under the "unavoidable" standard, and the second was a petition under the "unintentional" standard. The two petitions are similar but have very different standards. The unavoidable standard was less expensive, but the showing to be made was more rigorous. Thus very few of these were granted. The unintentional standard was less rigorous and thus easier to get approved, but it was more expensive.
【連結 】
An application could be revived for a fee of about $900 if the entire delay in responding was unintentional. This was an easy standard to meet and essentially required, as long as it was truthful, a check-the box style statement that the delay was unintentional.

==================================

【連結】 Caselaw:

1.  Lumenyte v. Cable Lite (Fed. Cir. 1996): Patentee revived case as unintentionally abandoned. The CAFC affirmed the ruling without questioning whether such revival is ever permissible. 
2. Morganroth v. Quigg (Fed. Cir. 1989): Affirming that the Director does not have authority to revive an unintentionally abandoned patent application “that resulted from the applicant’s failure to appeal from a final district court judgment that upheld the Commissioner’s prior refusal to issue a patent.” 
3. New York Univ. v. Autodesk, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50832 (SDNY 2007): The court found that the delay in reviving was not even unintentional. The court explicitly did not reach the question of whether revival for unintentional abandonment due to failure to respond to an office action is even permitted. (Remember, 35 USC 133 only allows for revival of unavoidably abandoned applications.) 
4. Field Hybrids v. Toyota (D.Minn 2005). （復活成功後，在訴訟中被質疑。The case was eventially revived through a petition claiming "unintentional abandonment." Ultimately two patents issued based on the revived case.）
5. This case is not the recently decided Aristocrat v. Multimedia Games.

==================================

【連結】

Can You Revive Your Abandoned Patent Application? – Petitions to Revive:

Id.  Clients often are inclined to take a liberal view of the term “unintentional,” and may consider it only from the perspective of whether they currently intend for the application or patent to be abandoned, which is never the case when revival is being sought.  Although the Patent Office will not necessarily ask about it, the facts surrounding the abandonment must indicate that it was truly “unintentional.”  Otherwise, the petition may be “materially false.”  The MPEP points out several situations where an applicant decides not to respond to an office action or pay a maintenance fee which result in an abandonment that is not properly considered “unintentional” （MPEP 列了幾個不是「非故意」的情況）:

A) the applicant does not consider the claims to be patentable over the references relied upon in an outstanding Office action;

(B) the applicant does not consider the allowed or patentable claims to be of sufficient breadth or scope to justify the financial expense of obtaining a patent;

(C) the applicant does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to justify the financial expense of obtaining the patent;

(D) the applicant does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to maintain an interest in obtaining the patent; or

(E) the applicant remains interested in eventually obtaining a patent, but simply seeks to defer patent fees and patent prosecution expenses.

Id.   Whether an abandonment is truly intentional will typically not be considered by the Patent Office.  Instead, the issue will arise if a patent is obtained (or revived) and an infringement suit is filed based on it.  At that point, you should expect an accused infringer to seek discovery of the circumstances that led to the abandonment.  If the evidence indicates that the abandonment was actually intentional, the infringer will likely argue that the patent should be held unenforceable for inequitable conduct.  Keep in mind that the entire delay between the due date of the required reply (e.g., the office action deadline or maintenance fee deadline) must have been unintentional.

An example of what can occur if a petition to revive is not properly vetted is provided by Network Signatures, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (Case No. 11-00982- JVS, C.D. Cal. 2012).  In Network Signatures the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct based on an improper petition to revive for unintentional abandonment.  The patent-in-suit went abandoned due to a delayed maintenance fee payment.  Discovery in the case showed that the decision not to pay the maintenance fee was deliberate and that at the time the petition to revive was filed, there was no evidence to suggest that a mistake had been made in deciding not to pay the maintenance fee.  A copy of the decision can be obtained here.

中國專利權評價報告的下載

中國專利權評價報告的下載，連結如下：

http://cpquery.sipo.gov.cn/，

選擇“公众查询”，輸入專利號（注意不含小數點），在“审查信息 ”中可以看到。

週三，國知局系統更新，無法查詢。

可以查詢「近似用語」的網站

可以查詢「近似用語」的網站

廣義知網知識本體架構2.0版線上瀏覽

最近發現了一個很好的網站，可以查詢「近似用語」。在寫說明書或檢索專利說明書時，在決定用語的名詞時，可以參考這個網站的用語。

另外，該網站還有兩個很不錯的功能，一個是斷詞，另一個是偵測錯別字。尤其是第二個，應該是我最需要的吧。

USPTO 專利的檔案歷史下載網址。

USPTO 專利的檔案歷史下載網址。
REED TECH
http://patents.reedtech.com/Public-PAIR.php 除了官方的網站之外，還可以從上述的網址下載美國專利的檔案歷史。早期其實是由google來crawling，後來google不做了，改由REED TECH。從這邊下載檔案歷史，比較方便，輸入申請號後，就能夠下載。。

Anaconda 無法開啟

Anaconda 無法開啟

今早Anaconda 無法開啟，出現「psutil.access denied (PID = 793) #8380」，google查資料後，得知可以用以下方式解決。

1、開啟Anaconda Command Prompt, 然後執行：.

conda update conda
conda update anaconda-navigator
conda update navigator-updater

2、重設Anaconda，執行如下命令。

anaconda-navigator --reset

新手上路，問題很多。 其他今天還更新了Anaconda，方式如下。更新之後，原本不能使用的「jupyterlab」就能使用了。
1、先 update conda 自己後，再更新全部。

conda update conda 

conda update --all (可能會讓環境不穩定)   或  conda update anaconda  

專利元件符號抓取程式

【程式更新】
【v1.2】

本次更新內容。

1、修正元件符號為個位數時，會與「圖1」或「第1圖」等衝突的問題。

2、修正段落符號【0001】等也被擷取的問題。
3、程式名稱的版本的編碼也重新修改。

【v1.1】
注意程式沒有很完美，還是需要人為的修改，目前已知的問題：
1、如果元件符號為個位數時，會與「圖1」或「第1圖」等衝突，會出現的錯誤，如下。因此，建議不要使用個位數的數字符號。

1：第
2：第
1：圖
2：圖

2、發現的話會慢慢更新。 感謝您使用本“專利元件符號捉取程式，prefnum”。


【專利元件符號抓取程式】

使用方法如下：
1、將說明書儲存成文字檔，檔名為「datafile.txt」，注意要以「UTF-8」的編碼儲存。
2 、執行「prefnum.exe」。
3、會產生兩個名為：「workfile.txt」及「workfile_v1.txt」的檔案，該些檔案即為元件符號說明，這兩個檔案是用不同的邏輯或演算法來擷取元件符號說明，可以互相的比較。


【程式下載】
程式下載如下連結：

Dropbox下載
v1.1：連結一
v1.2：連結一

新功能的記錄

新功能的記錄

1、新酷音輸入法的擴展碼表，至於“cheliu”的“extendtable.dat”。目前測試，數字不行只能用英文字編碼。另外，不能直接編輯“extendtable.dat”的檔案，還需要在“launch_config.html”中，按下「套用設定」，儲存設定，才能使用。2018/4/21

結論
目前找到的最適合新功能的，僅有「偽蝦」了。2018/4/21

關於 Anaconda 的安裝！

關於 Anaconda 的安裝！

先前在安裝時，遇到「Failed to create Anaconda Menus」的問題，試了很多方法都沒有成功。

最後做了如下改變，就成功了。
1、將視窗的環境變數，整個備份後刪除，重新安裝。（Anaconda 安裝完成後，再將備份的資料還原回去。）
2、變更安裝目錄為C:碟（C:\Anaconda3）下。

不過，後來想想，應該是做了第1點就可以成功安裝了。

====

第一次安裝Anaconda 沒有這個問題，後來安裝了vscode且為了執行.bat檔而變更了環境變數，剛開始幾天沒有問題，但後來發生當機和錯誤訊息。

再詳細讀資料後，Anaconda 建議安裝在「使用者」下，而不是全部使用者下，另外，也不要變更環境變數，而是使用Anaconda Prompt。這樣子與其他程式衝突的機會較小，較為安定。

臺灣專利申請號的編碼規則

臺灣專利申請號的編碼規則

前三個碼：代表民國年。
第四個碼：1為發明、2為新型、3為設計。
之後的碼：流水號。

Google patent 爬蟲擷取專利資訊

一開始爬google patent時，發現被禁止無法捉取資料，原來是少了header。以下程式碼可以爬google patent獲取資料。

 

import urllib.request
from bs4 import BeautifulSoup

req = urllib.request.Request('http://www.google.st/patents/US7992995')
req.add_header('User-agent', 'Mozilla/5.0')
patent_html = urllib.request.urlopen(req)

soup = BeautifulSoup(patent_html, 'html.parser')

patentNumber = soup.find("span", { "class" : "patent-number" }).text
assigneeMetaTag = soup.find("meta", { "scheme" : "assignee"})
patentAssignee = assigneeMetaTag.attrs["content"]

print(patentNumber, patentAssignee)

 

更多訊息，可以參考以下Stackoverflow網址：

 

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32637023/using-google-patent-api

Patent-Management-Chart 更新

 

本來昨天決定要好好工作，停止寫code，但還是忍不住寫了。

 

https://github.com/ides13/Patent-Management-Chart/blob/master/Chart_plot_20170517.ipynb

 

更新的檔案，將發明人、專利權人、申請日、申請號等資料加入。

不過，圖表只有增加發明人和專利權人。