{"title":"半因果关系如何启发专利权利要求书的起草","authors":"Mo Abolkheiro","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.\n\nThe first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention\n\nOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.\n\nBesides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims\",\"authors\":\"Mo Abolkheiro\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.\\n\\nThe first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention\\n\\nOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.\\n\\nBesides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims
The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.
The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention
On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.
Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.