Isn't "easy to think of" not sure that it has been "thought of"? How can it affect the "creativity" of the application? All declared patents have an application date or priority date. Do things "thought" after the application date and priority date still work? Can "thought" be used as evidence? If all the "thinking" things work now and in the future, what is the filing date or priority date? Why do I need to search for documents? "Easy to think", how many people can the examiner "think" about the world? what do you think? How many people will "want" to show us in the future.
The examiner used "enlightenment" in the first notice of examination-"easy to think of"; "Motivated"-"No unexpected technical effect" to deny this patent has become the usual examination mode for examiners.
In my first-instance opinion statement (Annex 8), I pointed out this problem and cited two examples: the notice used many inaccurate and unscientific words such as "technical personnel in this field", "inspired by comparison documents", "motivated", "thinking", "easy to think", "able to think" and "its technical effect is foreseeable". "Thinking" means thinking, thinking, and it also contains the uncertain elements of "speculation" and "thinking". It is a hypothesis of a person or a group under certain conditions, which may or may not be correct; There are 6.3 billion people in the world and about 4.9 billion adults. Who knows what everyone is thinking? Is that so? Who will judge? Therefore, assumptions such as "can think of" cannot be used as facts or evidence to judge whether a patent can be granted. Let me give two examples:
1. The examiner wrote in the notice of opinions of the first instance: "Inspired by the system for producing alcohol by solar energy disclosed in the reference document 1, the technicians in this field can reasonably use solar energy in the corresponding process steps according to actual needs, so as to achieve the purpose of energy saving and environmental protection." In the field of "system for producing alcohol by solar energy", the "technical person in this field" who was first inspired and knew the system for producing alcohol by solar energy is the inventor of this patent. Since it is "easy to think of", why didn't he use the sweet sorghum straw advocated by the state as raw material instead of grain? Why not use liquid fermentation instead of solid fermentation? Why not use large fermentation bags for fermentation, but still use expensive equipment such as steam furnace, fermentor, distiller/tower for crude distillation and rectification? Why not use the heat energy of a flat solar water heater with a thermal efficiency of 67% to strip ethanol, but use the electric energy provided by a solar generator to make the steam furnace generate steam and then provide heat energy for the fermentation tank, crude distillation and subsequent ethanol rectification? "Easy to think of", in fact, the inventor did not think of, this is just the examiner's subjective speculation.
2. The examiner wrote in the notice of opinions of the first instance: "Soaking raw materials with yeast solution is a conventional technical means to prepare ethanol by fermentation. For the purpose of saving investment and facilitating heat conduction, those skilled in the art can think of replacing the fermentation tank with a big bag made of black plastic film or rubber or a container similar to a biogas digester, and its technical effect is foreseeable. " What do you expect? The plastic film is made of ethylene and the fermentation tank is made of stainless steel. The thermal conductivity of ethylene is 0.0 17, while that of stainless steel is 16, which is more than 900 times different! How can plastic film become a good conductor for "facilitating thermal energy conduction"? The above facts prove that the above two ideas of the examiner are not in line with the facts and are incorrect, so subjective assumptions cannot be used as arguments or evidence to deny something "(Annex 8).
3. In the notice of the second review opinion, it is stated: "Reference document 2 discloses the enlightenment of using dry and sweet sorghum powder or sugarcane powder as raw materials for ethanol production. Using fermentation bags as fermentation containers is easy for technicians in this field to consider from the perspectives of convenient transportation, investment saving, land saving, flexibility and convenience. Among them, black is often chosen because it has the characteristics of heat absorption and light avoidance, while plastic film and rubber are commonly used materials for preparing fermentation bags, and its technical effect is predictable "(). This is groundless speculation, and I really beg to differ. 1) How to ferment in a big fermentation bag for convenient transportation? How to transport dozens or even hundreds of tons of fermentation raw materials in plastic bags? "Flexible and convenient", okay? Plastic bags do not need to be moved at all from loading raw materials to extracting alcohol, and the fermentation period is shortened from 2-3 days to 24 hours, which is a major feature of this patent. What's the use of "flexibility and convenience"? 2) "Saving land" is also wrong. The fermentor and distillation tower are made of stainless steel, which is very strong. It is upright and can be made into a fermentor and distillation tower with a height of tens of meters. However, the strength of plastic bags is limited, which can only expand the area and reduce the height. How can it be "land saving"? 3) The characteristic of "black is endothermic" is often chosen, which is even more wrong, because a lot of heat will be generated during fermentation, so what should be done at this time is to reduce the temperature, instead of increasing the temperature through "endothermic". 4) "Plastic film and rubber are common materials for making fermentation bags", and the examiner also searched. No one in the world has ever made a large fermentation bag made of plastic film and rubber to produce alcohol. How can we become "ordinary materials"? Has become a common material, can I still apply for this patent? Using "fermentation bag as fermentation container" is one of the core technologies of this patent, which can abolish expensive equipment such as fermentation tank, distillation tower, bubble cap tower and high-pressure boiler, thus saving 96% energy (see the cited document). Did the examiner think of the above four points? Did the examiner "foresee" its technical effect?
In the 1 review opinion statement, the examiner turned a deaf ear to my sincere advice and suggestions. In the notice of the second review opinion, he said: "The examiner has carefully considered the applicant's opinion statement and cannot agree." Instead of changing it, he used "motivated", "inspired", "inspired", "obvious" and "predictable". Even the best invention patents in the world can be denied by this model, so I wonder why examiners don't use dialectical materialism to analyze, examine and think about problems.