United States Patent and Trademark Office
IPC Working Group
Topic: Updating IPC Training Examples for Date: January 11, 2006
Reformed IPC
Comments on Project TE228
US has reviewed the Rapporteur Report (Annex 3) and proposal (Annex 4) and agrees
with its general information statements and several of its statements regarding the core
and advanced level classification. Unfortunately we do not agree with the proposed
primary classification for this document and the assignment of an indexing code.
The inventive thing claimed is using a mould for making disposable soft contact lenses.
We agree with Rapporteur that subclass B29D is the most appropriate subclass and its
main group B29C 39/00 is the most appropriate main group for the preferred obligatory
classification. This is based on (3) note of the class B29 title, subsections c and i, that
indicates that molding contact lenses is classified in subclass B29C, and not subclass
B29D, when no aspects that are characteristic of the production of a particular article are
claimed.
The claim states that a contact lens having a “chosen diameter, a posterior surface, a
finished edge, and an anterior surface” is being made. Therefore, in our opinion, based
on the requirements of the Guide, one-dot subgroup B29C 39/02 covering molds for
making particular discrete articles has priority over one-dot subgroup B29C 39/22
covering components or parts for molds. It should be noted that EP has classified similar
patent documents in subgroup B29C 39/02 (see WO2004039555, US6475410,
US4159292). The underlined portions of Paragraph 142 of the Guide support this view:
“As opposed to the first and last place priority rules described in paragraphs 146 to 154, below, no
general priority rules apply in the common rule areas of the IPC. However, the following principles
of priority can be applied to limit unnecessary multiple classification and to select groups that most
adequately represent the technical subject to be classified:
(a)
Groups for more complex matter take priority over groups for less complex matter.
For example, groups for combinations take priority over groups for subcombinations
and groups for “whole things” take priority over groups for “details.”
(b)
Groups for more specialised subject matter take priority over groups for less
specialised subject matter. For example, groups for unique types of matter or groups
for matter with means for solving particular problems take priority over more general
groups.”
A secondary obligatory classification to subgroup B29C 39/28 is appropriate for details
of the mold.
We agree with Rapporteur that the disclosure covers useful additional information that
should be classified or indexed. In fact, the last paragraph of the disclosure seems to
restrict certain features of the mold that are claimed to use for making a contact lens.
Note 4 after the subclass title of subclass B29C suggest adding useful indexing codes, if
any, from subclasses B29K and B29L. However, subclass B29D clearly covers making
optical elements in main group B29D 11/00 and documents are required to be
obligatorily classified therein when claiming aspects that are characteristic of the
production of a particular article.
In this situation, we believe that it is more appropriate to assign a non-obligatory
classification in B29D 11/00 to cover this additional information than it is to assign
indexing code B29L 11/00. Group B29D 11/00 covers this subject matter and is more
useful for searching purposes (B29D 11/02 subject matter is removed from the search).
This seems the correct procedure based on paragraphs 104 and 119 of the Guide. It
should be noted that EP has classified similar patent documents in subgroup B29D 11/00
and not indexed them in B29L 11/00 (see EP159625, WO2005025843, US2005237481).
In fact, paragraphs 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93 of the “Guidelines for Revision of the IPC
(IPC/WG/14/3 ANNEX IV), passed at the last meeting of the IPC WG, would prohibit
the creation of the vast majority of groups currently within indexing subclass B29L. With
the exception of group B29L 31/00, its remaining groups (B29L 1/00 - B29L 30/00) are
merely truncated versions of the same titles used in B29D for covering the same subject
matter. In particular, paragraph 93 states “Indexing schemes should normally not be
created when existing groups in other parts of the IPC already explicitly identify the same
subject matter. In these situations, additional information classification in those groups
could be recommended instead.”
An example of the potential problems associated with such indexing schemes is
demonstrated by the fact the subclass B29L still includes group B29L 9/00 even though
its equivalent was deleted from subclass B29D. In reality, subclasses B29L and B29D,
when taken together, merely function like a single subclass whose group symbols are
used in the dual manner specified in paragraph 76 (b) of the IPC7 Guide. This type
indexing (e.g., IPC7 subclass A01N Note 10) was ended because of increased additional
information classification. We suggest that Task Force recommend the ALS consider
deletion of groups B29L 1/00 - B29L 30/00 of subclass B29L to prevent confusion.
US proposes:
Core level
Int. Cl. (2006)
B29C 39/02
B29C 39/28
Advanced level
B29C 39/02
B29C 39/28
B29D 11/00
(2006.01)
(2006.01)
(2006.01)