|
Implemented 20 countries AT, CH, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, LI, LU, LV, NO, PL, PT, SE, SK, TR
Implemented in parts 11 countries BG, CZ, EE, IE, IS, IT, LT, ME, RS, SI, SM
Information not available 9 countries AL, BA, BE, CY, MC, MK, MT, NL, RO |
Survey questions and answers
AT - Austria
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
BG - Bulgaria
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? No |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? No |
CH - Switzerland
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
CZ - Czechia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
DE - Germany
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
DK - Denmark
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
EE - Estonia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? No |
ES - Spain
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
FI - Finland
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
FR - France
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
6.5: Sufficiency of disclosure is not examined during the patent grant procedure. However, the sufficiency of disclosure is a ground for opposition procedure.
6.8: Concerning the answers to question 6.8, we don’t require a mandatory formulation, but, in our Guidelines, we precise some kinds of formulation which are accepted.
GB - United Kingdom
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
In Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] EWHC 2948 (Ch) (21 November 2023), the England and Wales High Court held that an invention which provides media file recommendations (for example music track recommendations) to a user by passing music tracks through a trained Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was not excluded as a program for a computer.
The UK Intellectual Property Office is currently working through the implications of this decision and will update the above answers, if necessary, once the impact of the decision becomes clearer. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks will be appealing the decision.
GR - Greece
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
HR - Croatia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
HU - Hungary
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
IE - Ireland
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? No |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
IS - Iceland
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? No |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? No |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? No |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? No |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? No |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? No |
Additional information
This project has not yet been scrutinized by the ISIPO, therefore the "no" replies should be regarded as "not specifically outlined in our patent legislation/guidelines". On the other hand, no national AI applications have yet been received by the ISIPO, therefore, the legal provisions have not been "put to the test", i.e. with regard to interpretation. The ISIPO does not have any in-house patent examiners, examination of national patent applications is performed by DKPTO, based on the Icelandic national legislation, which is similar to the Danish patent legislation to a large extent.
IT - Italy
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? No |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
LI - Liechtenstein
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
The Swiss IPI acting for LI is not examining novelty and inventiveness
LT - Lithuania
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? No |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
When reading our answers, it is necessary to take into account the fact that we do not carry out substantive examination.
LU - Luxembourg
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
The LU office does not do a substantive examination of patent applications. The questions were ansered positively based on the fact the search report with written opinion made by the EPO for LU applications is based on the EPO search and examining guidelines.
LV - Latvia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
We cannot answer to all questions of this part because we have very few applications which maybe contain AI features and we do not provide substantive examination. Therefore our answers in this part of questionnaire are more intuitive than based on solid analysis.
ME - Montenegro
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? No |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? No |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
NO - Norway
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
PL - Poland
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
Article 52(2) and Article 52(3) of the EPC align with Polish law. In Polish law, the general principles governing the sufficiency of disclosure and claims drafting apply to both CII and AI inventions. Some aspects of the common practice are outlined in the General Guidelines of the President of the Polish Patent Office, which are binding for examiners. It's worth noting that there is a limited number of CII and AI patent applications in Poland, which has resulted in our practice in these areas being less firmly established.
PT - Portugal
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
Conserning CIIs and AI-related inventions, our office follows the EPO examination guidelines.
RS - Serbia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? No |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
SE - Sweden
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
SI - Slovenia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? No |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
Additional information
In our office, examiners do not have much experience with AI-related inventions.
SK - Slovakia
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |
SM - San Marino
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? No |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? No |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? No |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? No |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? No |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? No |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? No |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? No |
TR - Türkiye
|
6.1. When examining CIIs and AI-related inventions, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice take into account that:
Yes |
6.2. Mixed-type inventions comprise both technical and non-technical features, the latter being features which, when taken in isolation, are excluded from patentability. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice acknowledge that, in the context of an invention as a whole, such non-technical features, e.g. mathematical steps related to AI, can contribute to the technical character of the invention and thus support patentability? Yes |
|
6.3. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is the contribution to technical character made by mathematical methods employed by AI-related inventions currently assessed in the same way as the contribution of mathematical methods to CIIs? Yes |
6.4. In the assessment of obviousness according to your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that the common general knowledge of the skilled person comprises commonly known AI tools? Yes |
|
6.5. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, do the general sufficiency of disclosure requirements apply to all inventions, including CIIs and AI-related inventions? Yes |
6.6. When AI relies on mathematical methods, does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice require that the mathematical methods must be disclosed in sufficient detail so that the invention can be reproduced by the person skilled in the art? Yes |
|
6.7. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that where training datasets are used in machine learning algorithms and contribute to bringing about a technical effect, the characteristics of the training datasets required for reproducing this technical effect may need to be disclosed (or be common general knowledge)? Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it assumed that there is generally no need to disclose specific training datasets, e.g. the ones employed by the inventors? Yes |
6.8. Under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice, is it acknowledged that there is no need for mandatory formulations for "computer program" claims? Yes |
|
6.9. If general-purpose computer hardware alone is not enough to execute all the method steps referred to by a claim to a computer program, and the claim fails to recite additional technical means necessary for performing the steps, is it considered under your National Patent Office’s administrative practice that the claim lacks clarity or support by the description? Yes |
6.10. Does your National Patent Office’s administrative practice provide that the meaning and the technical character of AI-specific terms is to be assessed in the context of the subject-matter defined in a claim as a whole? Yes |