向 EPO 申请计算机实施发明专利：第一部分

向 EPO 申请计算机实施发明专利：第 一部分

Patenting Computer Implemented Inventions at the EPO: Part One

本次共发布两份通讯，第一份通讯汇总 了起草软件和算法相关发明专利申请的 建议。由于这些是出了名的在欧洲专利局 (EPO) 难以申请成功的主题领域，我们旨 在提供一些实用技巧，以增加 EPO 对这 类申请给予授权的机会。

In this first of two newsletters, we summarise our recommendations for drafting patent applications for inventions concerning software and algorithms. As these are subject matter areas that have gained a reputation for being difficult to successfully prosecute before the European Patent Office (EPO), we aim to provide some helpful tips to increase the chances of these applications granting before the EPO.

可以向 EPO 提交哪类软件专利申请？ EPC 第 52 条对可专利性发明的构成做出 了规定，该项规定指出，如果权利要求与 主题“本身”有关，则数学方法和计算机 程序不属于发明。对于“本身”这个词的 含义，是许多判例法一直以来并继续将是 大家关注的焦点，但我们的判例法规定， 如果某项发明“具有技术性”，则该发明 不在排除范围之内。因此，结论认为只 有“技术性”的主题才具有可专利性。但 是，这样一来，我们需要讨论的内容就从 如何理解“本身”这个词变成了什么是/ 不是“技术性”发明。 EPO 认为，计算机实施发明（“CII”发 明）是一种使用计算机、计算机网络或其 他可编程设备做出的发明，发明的一个或 多个特征全部或部分通过计算机程序实 现。 人工智能（“AI”）/机器学习一直以来 都是由计算机实施的，EPO 认为 AI 是一 种数学方法。 2021 年 3 月最新版的 EPO 审查指南特别 提及了这类发明以及 EPO 在 AI 和机器学 习方面的常规做法：

“人工智能和机器学习基于计算模型和算 法进行分类、聚类、回归和降维，例如 神经网络、遗传算法、支持向量机、k-均 值、核回归和判别分析。这种计算模型 和算法本身都具有抽象的数学性质，无论 是否可以基于训练数据“训练”它们。 因此，G-II 3.3 中提供的指南通常也适用 于这种计算模型和算法”（EPO 审查指 南，第 G-II 章，3.3.1）。

虽然 CII 主题可以申请专利，但关于具体 技术性（可专利性）主题认定的判例法十 1

What kinds of software can be patented at the EPO? EPC Article 52, relating to what constitutes a patentable invention, states that mathematical methods and programs for computers are not inventions to the extent that the claims relate to this subject matter “as such.”

Much case law has been and continues to be the focus of what those two words, “as such”, mean but it is established in our case law that if the invention is “technical”, then it does not fall within the exclusion. Therefore, the conclusion is that only “technical” subject matter is patentable. However, this effectively moves the discussion from how the words “as such” are to be understood to what does/does not constitute a “technical” invention.

At the EPO, a computer-implemented invention (“CII” invention) is one which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)/Machine Learning is always computer implemented, and the EPO considers AI to be a mathematical method. www.hlk-ip.cn

The most recent March 2021 edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO specifically addressed these kinds of inventions and the EPO's practice for AI and machine-learning: “Artificial intelligence and machine learning are based on computational models and algorithms for classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis. Such computational models and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be "trained" based on training data. Hence, the guidance provided in G‑II, 3.3 generally applies also to such computational models and algorithms” (Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Chapter G-II, 3.3.1).

Although CII subject matter can be patented, the case law about what exactly is technical (and therefore patentable) is complex. However, the EPO has clarified that an invention can be technical in two different ways (dimensions): 分复杂。但是，欧洲专利局已经澄清， 可以通过两种不同的方式（维度）确定 一项发明是否具有技术性： 维度 1：某个特征特别适用于特定的技 术实施（从某种意义上说，特征的设计 是出于对计算机内部功能的技术考虑） 。例如，某项权利要求可能会改善 AI 算法本身的内部运作机制，例如 AI 算 法在软件层次结构 - 硬件中的运作机 制。在这个维度上，需要对 AI 算法做 出一些调整，才能实施特定的技术，因 此需要考虑计算机的内部功能。 维度 2：某个特征在 EPO 认定的技术 领域具有技术应用（凭借在技术领域的 应用，该特征获得“技术”地位 - 例 如用 AI 寻找新的化学成分或作图像处 理）。在这个维度上，需要对 AI 算法 做出一些调整，才能实现特定的技术应 用，例如解决某一技术领域的特定技术 问题。 2

Dimension 1: a feature is particularly adapted for a specific technical implementation (in the sense that the design of the feature is motivated by technical considerations of the internal functioning of a computer). For example, a claim may improve the inner workings of the AI algorithms themselves, e.g. in hardware of software hierarchy. For this dimension, an AI algorithm needs to be adapted for a specific implementation in a computer and therefore needs to be motivated by considerations of the internal functioning of a computer.

Dimension 2: a feature has a technical application to a field that the EPO deems technical (the feature thereby gains “technical” status by virtue of its application in a technical field – e.g. applied AI to finding a new chemical composition or to image processing). www.hlk-ip.cn

因此，发明必须从根本上改进计算机， 或者被应用于特定的视为技术的领域。 就后一种情况来说，关于技术领域认定 的判例法不仅繁多，而且十分复杂。 如何推动起草 AI 申请向授权的正确方向 如果某项特征不仅具备创造性，而且在 EPO 看来同时具有技术贡献，该项特征 才会被 EPO 认定具有创造性。因此，起 草符合 EPO 要求的申请涉及到以技术方 式区分现有技术的问题。

For this dimension, an AI algorithm needs to be adapted for a particular technical application, for example to solve a particular technical problem in a technical field.

Thus, either the invention must fundamentally make a computer better, or it is applied to a specific field of technology considered technical.

In the latter case, there is a large body of complex case law as to what is, and what is not, a technical area.

How to push a draft AI application in the right direction for grant

Technical features 技术特征

Inventive features 创造性特征

Useful features for inventive step 有效创造性特征

首先，我们需要您提供应用中的适当详 细技术信息。当然，您还需要描述发明 中使用的所有标准软件和硬件。但重点 应放在全面介绍软件和/或硬件部分与现 有技术的区别。对于人工智能，如果发 明处于训练/学习阶段，您需要让发明人 尽可能多地提供细节信息，用来解释该 阶段的所有新事物。此外，为便于 EPO 判定发明是否具有创造性，起草阶段， 在说明书中详细指明发明的优势大有裨 益，因为 EPO 会基于这些优势论证发明 是否具有创造性。 虽然数学方法必须服务于技术目的才能 被视为具有技术性，但通用目的（例 如“控制技术系统”）太过笼统 - 目的 必须要具体。此外，权利要求在定义技 术目的时，不应过于广泛，否则 EPO 会 将其视为“管理”目的。 3

Only features which are both inventive and viewed by the EPO as having a technical contribution can confer an inventive step before the EPO. This makes drafting an application which is suitable for the EPO in this area a question of distinguishing over the prior art in a way which is deemed technical.

So we need the right kind of technical detail in the application at the start to help us. It is of course necessary to include a description of all the standard software and hardware that is used in the invention. However, emphasis should be placed on a full disclosure of the parts of the software and/or hardware that distinguish over the prior art. For AI in particular, if the invention is in the training/learning phase for example, you need to provide as much detail as you can “squeeze out” of the inventors to explain everything that is new in that phase. Also, for inventive step at the EPO, it is very useful to add advantages of the invention details into the specification at the drafting stage, because inventive step arguments can be based on these advantages.

Although a mathematical method must serve a technical purpose to be deemed technical, a generic purpose (such as “controlling a technical system”) is not sufficient – the purpose must be specific. Furthermore, the claim should not define a technical purpose www.hlk-ip.cn

EPO 认可的技术目的包括但不限于如下 若干实例： •

数字音频、图像或视频增强或分析

•

语音信号源的分离、语音识别

•

实现可靠和/或高效传输或存储的数 据编码（及相应的解码）

•

软件编译

•

加密/解密或签署电子通讯

•

• •

•

与（人类感兴趣的）认知数据而非（ 机器相关）功能数据有关的发明

与语言学、业务或管理相关的任何 事物 非常广泛的技术范围或缺乏具体的技 术实现（提供的后备位置更窄）

EPO 接受的 CII 权利要求表包括但不限 于：

•

一种计算机实施方法，包括步骤 A、B、…… 例如，一种训练（或评估或操作）神 经网络的计算机实施图像处理方法， 包括步骤……

2. 一种包含权利要求 1 所述方法的数据 处理装置/设备/系统，或旨在执行权 利要求 1 所述方法的处理器 4

•

digital audio, image or video enhancement or analysis

•

separation of sources in speech signals, speech recognition

•

encoding data for reliable and/ or efficient transmission or storage (and corresponding decoding)

•

compilation of software

•

encrypting/decrypting or signing electronic communications

•

facilitating data access using data structures (although we consider this a borderline case)

未提供给机器/技术过程的输出

作为人机交互的一部分，图形用户界面 (GUI) 带有呈现信息和接收输入响应的特 征。相较单纯涉及数据输出和显示的特 征而言，定义用户输入的特征被认定拥 有技术特性的可能性更大。另一方面， 由审美考虑、主观用户偏好或管理规则 决定的菜单（例如其外观和感觉）图形 设计等特征无法增加技术特性。但是， 如果某项权利要求特征与 GUI 有关， 并且该 GUI “可通过持续的和/或引导 式的人机交互过程帮助用户执行技术任 务”，则视为该特征具有技术特性（审 查指南，第 G-II 章，3.7 ）。

1.

Some examples of what the EPO considers to be technical purposes are:

使用数据结构促进数据访问（但我们 认为这种情况比较难定夺）

相反，EPO 通常认为以下领域不属于技 术领域： •

so broadly as to be seen by the EPO as “administrative.”

In contrast, areas generally viewed by the EPO as not technical are: •

inventions related to cognitive data (of interest to humans) rather than functional data (related to a machine)

•

output not fed to a machine/ technical process

•

anything that seems linguistics, or business or admin related

•

very broad technical scope or lacking specific technical implementation (provide narrower fallback positions)

A graphical user interface (GUI) comprises feature of presenting information and receiving input in response as part of a human-computer interaction. Features defining user input are more likely to be deemed to have a technical character than those solely concerning data output and display.

On the other hand, features concerning the graphic design of a menu (such as its look and feel) which are determined by aesthetic considerations, subjective user preferences or administrative rules www.hlk-ip.cn

do not contribute to technical character.

However, a claim feature concerning a GUI that “assist(s) the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process” has technical character (Guidelines for Examination, Chapter G-II, 3.7).

Example CII claim forms that are accepted by the EPO are: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising steps A, B, …

•

e.g. A computer-implemented image processing method of training (or evaluating, or operating) a neural network, comprising steps…

2. A data processing apparatus/device/ system comprising or a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1 3. A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, carry out the method of claim 1

3. 一种包含指令的计算机程序，并且计算 机执行这些指令时，权利要求 1 所述方 法会得以实施 4. 一种包含指令的计算机可读介质，并且 计算机执行这些指令时，权利要求 1 所 述方法会得以实施 见 EPO 审查指南 F-IV, 3.9.1：针对计算机实 施 发明的权利要求 EPO 如何处理“混合类”发明 许多 AI 应用都会同时包含技术和非技术 特征，这是因为它们与计算机实施（技术 性）的数学算法（非技术性）有关。下文 介绍了 EPO 是如何用“问题和解决方案” 法来处理这类权利要求的。这种方法被称 为“COMVIK”法（在 T 641/00 中提出） ，通过下面的流程图进行说明。

5

4. A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 See EPO Guidelines for Examination F-IV, 3.9.1: Claims directed to computerimplemented inventions The EPOs approach to “mixed-type” inventions Many AI applications will contain both technical and non-technical features since they relate to mathematical algorithms (non-technical) which are computerimplemented (technical). Here, we look at how the EPO applies the “problem and solution” approach to these types of claims. This is referred to as the “COMVIK” approach (as introduced in T 641/00) and is illustrated in the below flowchart.

www.hlk-ip.cn

Assessment of technical character 技术特性评估

Is there a technical character to the claimed subject-matter? 主张的标的是否具有技术特性？ Yes 是

No 否

Art. 52(2)(c) and (3) objections 第 52(2)(c) 和 (3) 条 异议 Divide the claim into its constituent technical and non-technical features 将权利要求分为其构成的技术特征和非技术特征 Non-technical features that, in the context of the invention, contribute to producing a technical effect serving a technical purpose 就发明而言，有助于产生服务于技 术目的的技术效果的非技术特征

Technical features 技术特征

Non-technical features that serve no technical purpose 不服务于技术目的的非技术特 征

Determine the closest prior art based on the technical and contributing features 基于技术和贡献特征确定最接近的现有技术

Identify the differences between the claim and the closest prior art 确定权利要求与最接近的现有技术之间的差异 Differences make a technical contribution 差异做出技术贡献

No differences 无差异

Differences make no technical contribution 所有差异均未做出技术贡献

Art. 54 objections 第 54 条 异议

Art. 56 objections 第 56 条 异议

Formulate objective technical problem on the basis of the technical effect achieved by these differences 根据这些差异所实现的技术效果，阐述客观的技术问题

Assessment of inventive step 创造性评估

In addition, if the differences include features making no technical contribution, these features, or any non-technical effect achieved by the invention, may be used to formulate the problem. 此外，如果差异包含未做出技术贡献的特征，则可以用这些特征或发明所实现的任何非技 术效果来阐述问题。

6

Is the claimed technical solution to the objective technical problem obvious to the person skilled in the art? 针对客观技术问题主张的技术方案对该 领域技术人员来说是否明显？

Yes 是

No 否

Art. 56 objections 第 56 条 异议

Not patentable 不可申请专利

Patenatable 可申请专利

www.hlk-ip.cn

根据该方法，EPO 将首先评估权利要 求是否具有技术特性。但是，指定某 一方法是否是“计算机实施”方法， 可以很轻松地克服这个障碍。接下 来，EPO 会考虑权利要求是否具有任 何技术特征，并将其分为具有技术性 的特征和不具有技术性的特征。根据 上面定义的两项维度中的其中之一， 某个特征可以具有技术性。因此，术 语“技术特征”还包括单独考虑时不 具有技术性但从主张的发明来看确实 有助于产生技术效果的特征（例如， 用于识别图像的机器学习算法的特 征）。 如果权利要求包含非技术性特征，则 后期在阐述客观技术问题时可以使用 这些特征，作为“提供”给技术人员 的部分信息，尤其要将它们用作必须 满足的约束性条件。因此，最好不要 在权利要求中纳入过多的非技术性特 征。 然后，根据“标准”问题—解决方 案的方法，审查员会确定权利要求与 最接近的现有技术之间的差异，以及 这些差异在整个权利要求中的技术效 果。如果所有差异均未做出任何技术 贡献，EPO 可以提出创造性异议。例 如，用于训练神经网络的计算机实施 机器学习方法的权利要求在训练参数 上可能与现有技术存在差异，但是如 果它们与技术应用没有关联，就不会 做出任何技术贡献。 EPO 将基于确实做出技术贡献的差异 阐述客观的技术问题。阐述这一问题 时，也可以使用权利要求中未服务于 技术目的的非技术性特征。然后，审 查员会从最接近的现有技术和客观技 术问题出发，考虑主张的发明对技术 人员来说是否明显。例如，如果机器 学习方法的训练算法在定义中未与技 术应用关联，导致主张的整个方法被 认定为不具有技术性，那么客观技术 问题可能只是要实现这种方法。就这 一点来说，权利要求中的任何常规计 算机实施定义都会被认定为不具有创 造性，并且审查员很可能会引用“臭 名昭著的”计算机系统来反驳这些特 征。如果审查员认为发明不明显，则 不会提出创造性异议。 7

According to this approach, the EPO will first assess the claim for technical character. However, this hurdle is easily overcome by specifying that the method is “computer-implemented.” Next, the EPO will consider whether the claim has any technical features, dividing the claim into those features deemed technical and those that are not. A feature can be technical according to one of the two dimensions defined above. Therefore, the term “technical features” also includes features which, when taken in isolation, are non-technical but do – in the context of the claimed invention – help to produce a technical effect (e.g., features of a machine learning algorithm used to identify an image).

If the claim includes non-technical features, these features may later be used in the formulation of the objective technical problem as part of what is "given" to the skilled person, in particular as a constraint that has to be met. For this reason, it is best to beware of including too many non-technical features into the claims.

Then, as per the “standard” problemsolution approach, the Examiner will identify the differences between the claim and the closest prior art, and the technical effects of these differences in the context of the claim as a whole. If all of the differences make no technical contribution when the EPO can raise an inventive step objection. For example, a computerimplemented machine learning method claim for training a neural network may have differences over the prior art in the training parameters, but if they are not linked to a technical application, they will make no technical contribution.

Using the differences that do make a technical contribution, the EPO will formulate an objective technical problem.

The non-technical features of the claim that serve no technical purpose may be used to formulate this problem. The Examiner will then consider whether or not the claimed invention, starting from www.hlk-ip.cn

the closest prior art and the objective technical problem, would have been obvious to the skilled person. For example, if a training algorithm for a machine learning method is not linked in the definition to a technical application and the whole claimed method is therefore considered to be non-technical, the objective technical problem might simply be to implement such a method. At that point any general definitions of computer implementation in the claim will not be considered inventive, and the Examiner may well cite “notorious“ computer systems against these features. If the Examiner considers that it would not have been obvious, no inventive step objection is raised. 总结与实践要点

Summary and practice points

虽然大家已经感知到了向 EPO 成功证 实这类申请的难度，但仍然可以对多 类 AI 申请专利。要想跨越可专利性的 第一个障碍，权利要求必须具有技术 特征 - 这个很容易实现，例如主张由 计算机实施的方法或过程即可。

Despite some notoriety in terms of the perceived difficulty of successfully prosecuting these types of applications before the EPO, various types of AI can be patented. In order to clear the first hurdle to patentability, a claim must possess technical character – this is easily achieved e.g. by claiming a computerimplemented method or process.

第二个障碍是根据 COMVIK 法评估 主张标的的创造性，在此期间，会从 区别性特征能否解决技术问题这一方 面来评估区别性特征。为了尽可能增 加成功克服这一障碍的可能性，最好 在起草申请和权利要求时牢记这种 方法，并且尽可能详细地说明特定权 利要求特征所实现的任何技术效果。 起草权利要求或说明书过程中，某些 特征虽然看起来只是发明核心的补充 内容，并不是很重要，但后期可能会 在审查员基于引用的特定现有技术文 件评估创造性期间起到重要作用。如 果最初提交的申请包含这些“后备” 特征的一些技术效果，那么后期论证 这些附加特征的技术贡献为什么优于 现有技术时，更容易提出令人信服的 COMVIK 类论点。 前面说过，技术贡献可以发生在以下 两个维度中的任一维度：特定的技术 实施或技术应用。

8

The second hurdle then relates to assessing the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter according to the COMVIK approach, wherein the distinguishing features are assessed in terms of whether they solve a technical problem. In order to maximise the chances of success for clearing this hurdle, the application and the claims should ideally be drafted with this approach in mind, and should ideally include as much detail as possible regarding any technical effects achieved by specific claim features. Even features in the claims or description which may not seem to be very important during drafting, since they seem to be merely additions to the central aspects of the invention, may later turn out to be crucial for assessing inventive step in view of the particular prior art documents cited by the Examiner. If the www.hlk-ip.cn

此外，在技术背景下呈现应用，少强调 一些发明的业务或用户交互内容，重点 描述不同于现有技术的技术特征和发明 所克服的技术障碍会更有优势。最好再 描述一些发明方法或 AI 系统在现实生 活中的一些应用示例，以及可能有利于 构建整个发明的明显具备技术性的装置 的系统或设备权利要求，促进 EPO 审 查员做出具有“技术性”的认定。 在下一篇通讯中，我们将考察应用于 AI 发明的充分性，包括为满足该项要 求可能需要纳入应用的各类数据。我们 还将探讨我们可以从（关于计算机模拟 的）第 G 1/19 号决定以及后来引用第 G 1/19 号的决定中学到什么。

originally filed application includes some technical effects even for these "fall-back" features, it will be easier to come up with a convincing COMVIK-style argument on why these additional features provide a technical contribution over the prior art.

As explained earlier, a technical contribution can occur in either one of the two dimensions: specific technical implementation or technical application.

Further, it is advantageous to present the application in a technical context and to put the emphasis less on any business or user interaction aspects of the invention, but to focus on description of technical features which differ from the prior art and technical hurdles that are overcome by the invention.

Ideally, the description would also include some examples of real-life applications of the inventive method or AI system, and include system or device claims directed at obviously technical apparatuses that may also be beneficial for framing the whole invention in a context that is more likely to be accepted as "technical" by the EPO Examiner.

In our next newsletter we will examine sufficiency as applied to AI inventions, including the various types of data that may need to be included in the application to fulfil this requirement. We will also look at what can be learned from the decision G 1/19 (concerning computer simulations) and what can be learned from later decisions that have cited G 1/19.

联系我们 周冠冲 合伙人 dchew@hlk-ip.com

Daniel Chew

利敏

Li Min

中国代表处首席代表 lmin@hlk-ip.com

9

Contact us Partner, Head of Asia Group dchew@hlk-ip.com

Chief Representative China Office lmin@hlk-ip.com

www.hlk-ip.cn