In the last part, let's think about why the disclosure is not sufficient and it is not allowed to add content to the manual. Since you don't think I'm open enough, I'll add something that isn't open.
In fact, if the above situation is allowed, the first application system will become useless. For example, if two inventors A and B develop a technology at the same time, A applied for a patent in advance before the technology was developed, and B completed the invention before A, but applied for a patent after completing the invention;
Then A's patent application was identified by the examiner as insufficient disclosure. If A is allowed to supplement under the condition of insufficient disclosure, A can obtain a patent; In fact, inventor B, who finished the invention first and applied for a patent in time, can't get the patent right, which is undoubtedly unfair to B;
Therefore, it is not only helpful to reduce the situation that inventors jump ahead of competitors through speculation and imagination, but also helpful to urge inventors to disclose their plans as much as possible.
Since it can't be added, what should I do if I get insufficient review opinions?
According to the provisions of the review procedure, it seems that it can only be explained by way of proof or clarification. The part of the review opinion that is not fully disclosed belongs to the prior art, that is, the publications, electronic journals or patent documents published before the application date show that the technicians in this field know the above-mentioned contents that are not fully disclosed, so they can realize the invention.
Let's take a case as an example to illustrate the invalid judgment. 2 1737 is a patent application for "liquid crystal display device and its display method" submitted for AUO optoelectronics. The technical problem to be solved is to improve the two-dimensional or three-dimensional field of vision. The adopted scheme is to use the patterning material with adjustable characteristics as the adjustable structural unit 706, and accurately control the distance between the guide unit 704 and the photosensitive unit 705 to achieve the best two-dimensional or three-dimensional view.
From the above description, it seems that the idea of the invention has been made clear, that is, the distance between the photosensitive unit and the guide unit at both ends is changed by the adjustable algebraic structural unit in the middle; However, in the specification, about how to realize the adjustment of the distance between them, the specification describes five or six ways to realize the adjustment in only one or two paragraphs: "Using the characteristics of the constituent materials (electrical characteristics, expansion characteristics, temperature characteristics, pressure characteristics) and/or combining with the traditional mechanical design ..." And the attached drawings of the specification are given to illustrate the adjustment principle, thus indicating that these structures can realize the adjustment of the distance, and they are all included in the scope of patent protection.
The description does not give more information about the invention, that is, it does not explain what the material is or how to adjust it to achieve the best view. As a result, the examiner rejected the application, and the notice of rejection pointed out: "The description of this application does not clearly and completely explain what material the adjustable algebraic structure of the invention is made of, and how to change it according to external conditions such as temperature and voltage to realize the fine adjustment of the distance between the guide unit and the photosensitive unit, which makes it impossible for the technicians in this field to realize the invention.
The applicant refused to accept this, and submitted two American patent documents as attachments to prove that using piezoelectric materials to make accurate linear changes is a well-known technology in the field. The applicant believes that according to the existing technology and the contents disclosed in the specification, other methods of linear adjustment of external strain can also be realized by technicians in the field.
In this regard, the Reexamination Board thinks: "Although it is stated in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 that piezoelectric materials can expand and contract to push the corresponding parts to move linearly, there is nothing in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 about how to control the displacement of the corresponding parts accurately and linearly.
In addition, although attachments 1 and 2 disclose that the piezoelectric body can expand and contract with the change of voltage, attachments 1 and 2 do not disclose how to apply this material to the liquid crystal display device and how to cooperate with various components in the liquid crystal display device, so that the distance between the guide unit and the photosensitive unit can be accurately and linearly controlled by this material no matter where the viewer is, thereby adjusting an appropriate distance to provide an optimized two-dimensional. "
Obviously, the retrial committee focused on the term "precise control", and the manual only gave the principle, which could not solve the problem of precise control.
In this regard, the re-examination requester revised the independent claims 1 and 6 against which the rejection decision was made, added the feature "prism array, which is arranged between the guide unit and the photosensitive unit", and deleted claims 4 and 5 against which the rejection decision was made;
It should also be pointed out that the adjustment principle described in this invention is similar to the background technology of annex 1, except that the adjustment structure of the adjustable algebraic structural unit is changed from a motor with complex structure to a material with adjustable characteristics, while annex 1 and annex 2 disclose the material with adjustable characteristics, which belongs to the prior art. Therefore, in the case that the installation position and material characteristics of the adjustable structure are disclosed in the specification of this application, those skilled in the art can
In this regard, the re-examination board thinks: "The adjustable structural unit in Annex 1 is a mechanical structure, and the adjustable structural unit required to be protected by this invention is a component material with adjustable characteristics. When some external factors such as temperature, voltage and pressure change, its adjustable characteristics are realized through deformation. The connection mode between the mechanical structure and internal components of a liquid crystal display device is necessarily different from that between the mechanical structure and internal components of a liquid crystal display device in the background, that is to say, a person skilled in the art cannot determine whether the effect described in this application specification can be achieved by directly connecting a material with this characteristic with the internal components of a liquid crystal display device according to the connection mode of the mechanical structure disclosed in the background.
Furthermore, the materials disclosed in appendices 1 and 2 can only expand and contract roughly to change their length, but they cannot control their length as accurately as described in the present invention (i.e., the spatial distance between the guide unit and the photosensitive unit can be accurately controlled). Therefore, in the case that this application does not disclose how to screen this material, how to set this material and how to match this material with other components in the liquid crystal display device, the technicians in this field can not implement the invention only according to the contents recorded in the specification of this application, so the claim of the reexamination requester is untenable. "Finally, the case is hopeless.
Needless to say, the reexamination board seems to be a little strict with this patent. After a rough search, it is found that the patent has been patented in the United States, Japan and Taiwan Province Province, and has been authorized in the United States and Taiwan Province Province. Interested students can do further research;
Xiaoding thinks that the experience we can get from this case is:
In the answer:
1. Patent documents can be cited to explain that the part that the examiner considers unpublished belongs to the existing technology known to the technicians in this field, and it is enough to explain clearly that the technicians in this field can realize the invention according to the existing technology they have mastered;
2. If you really can't make it clear, you can delete the subordinate relationship that the rejection is aimed at, because the scheme that can realize the protection required by the claim has been fully disclosed in the specification. If claims are not involved, it is not important whether the scheme in the specification is fully disclosed;
At the time of writing this report:
1. Give more pen and ink description to the core invention, not only explaining the technical principle, but also explaining how to cooperate with other components to realize this function, and don't use sensitive words such as "special";
2. The technical effect should correspond to the description of the technical scheme. If it is an upper-level scheme, it is described by the upper-level effect; If it is a lower-level scheme, it is described by the lower-level effect; In this case, it is rejected because it wants to achieve the lower-level technical effect of precise control, but the given scheme only stays in the upper-level description of technical principle. If the technical problem is changed to realize the adjustment of two-dimensional or three-dimensional vision, is it easier to recover?