当前人工智能技术成为国际竞争的新焦点，我国为了加快建设创新型国家和世界科技强国，将人工智能的发展提升至国家战略层面。由于人工智能算法最终会转化为繁琐的程序代码，与传统软件一样，需要利用计算机作为技术手段读取程序代码，才能应用实施并产生预期的产业积极效果，因此人工智能相关发明也属于计算机实施的发明，适用基本相同的可专利性标准——客体要件和实质性授权要件。

科技进步与专利制度之间存在着天然的联系。一方面，新技术促使专利法律制度对市场主体的需求作出回应，授予发明人一段时期内的垄断权以鼓励创新，实现技术情报的交流与传播；另一方面，专利授权条件应与发明实际的技术贡献程度相当，过度降低可专利性标准将导致专利丛林危机和反公地悲剧，损害正常的竞争秩序。计算机领域发明创造的专利保护同样如此。受美国专利政策的影响，各主要国家和地区纷纷以逐渐包容的态度对待计算机实施的发明。但是，由于计算机实施的发明具有多学科交叉融合、以算法为中心、累积性软件创新以及过于宽泛的专利权利要求等不同于一般发明的特点，对于其可专利性的判定通常缺乏确定性和一致性。事实上，计算机实施的发明能否获得专利保护除了需要满足专利客体适格性外，还应当具备实用性、新颖性和创造性。这些要件作为一个整体，既相互联系又彼此独立，按照客体适格性→实用性→新颖性→创造性的逻辑顺序，它们在各自的功能范围内逐层过滤不应当被授予专利权的发明创造。基于可专利性要件的体系化解读，不宜采取以客体适格性审查部分取代其他专利实质性要件审查的方式。

在客体适格性方面，通过比较研究可知，我国与美国、欧洲和日本普遍认可能够获得专利保护的发明是一种技术方案，并且具体判定过程中无需检索和对比现有技术。各国或地区之间存在的主要分歧在于，确定计算机实施的发明专利客体适格性是否需要考虑技术贡献。我国分别从技术问题、技术手段和技术效果三个角度，结合本领域公知常识衡量发明的技术贡献以此作为可专利客体的判断标准；美国适用“两步测试法”区分抽象思想与其实际应用以及寻找发明性概念，主要以改进计算机内部功能或其他技术领域为基准，本质上也是对技术贡献的考量。鉴于技术贡献暗含着与现有技术比较的必要性，理应属于新颖性或创造性评价范畴。就没有新产品产生的计算机实施的发明而言，在客体适格性判断阶段凭借经验或者直觉确定发明解决的技术问题以及实现的技术效果并不十分可靠。欧洲和日本专利局以技术实施手段为重点的判断路径对于我国重构技术方案“三要素”标准带来一定的启示。计算机实施的发明即使没有有形产品产生，也会引起计算机内部电流、性能的改变，故而可以肯定其利用了自然规律。当然，仅在权利要求中将通用计算机作为唯一的技术特征并不足以判定其属于专利保护客体，还要看说明书中是否充分公开使技术方案得以实施的算法步骤和功能性数据，及其与硬件之间的相互关系。

现有技术和本领域普通技术人员是新颖性和创造性判断的参照系。随着信息网络技术的广泛应用，特别是对于以人工智能系统作为辅助工具的发明创造活动，在不同法域现有技术的检索范围不断扩大，本领域普通技术人员的一般技术水平也随之提升。但是，这种现有技术的扩张趋势应当限制在本领域技术人员可以预见的合理范围内。人工智能自动生成的技术方案是否构成破坏新颖性的现有技术，应根据其公开的时间和状态，描述是否完整、清楚、准确，以及是否达到可实施的程度作出个案判断。面向公众开放的同行评议项目或外包模式、行政机构建设和审查工具智能化有助于提高现有技术检索质量。计算机实施的发明所属领域技术人员是人类而非人工智能系统，并且具有普通的创造能力，美国判例法和日本专利审查指南就此例举的主要情形，对于我国有着重要的借鉴意义。考虑到计算机实施的发明具有跨学科性，本领域技术人员不仅掌握计算机领域的算法、系统化和编程等知识，还熟识金融、行政管理、生物、化学、机械等应用领域知识，面对较为复杂的技术问题时，可以认为本领域技术人员是由来自不同技术领域专家组成的团队。至于是否将本领域技术人员界定为配备人工智能系统的人，需要综合所属技术领域的常规做法和人工智能市场供应情况与使用成本等因素予以判断。

我国与欧洲专利局适用类似的“三步法”或称“问题解决法”判断发明的创造性；欧洲经验表明即使弱化“技术问题”和“技术效果”要素在客体适格性判断中所占权重，由于“第二道门槛”的存在，也不会造成低质量专利泛滥的后果。具体适用“三步法”判定计算机实施的发明创造性时，可以从技术应用和技术实施的双重视角确定纳入创造性评价范畴的与技术特征功能上彼此相互支持、存在相互作用关系的算法特征或商业规则和方法特征。技术问题的认定不能包含解决方案的指向性提示，但可以使用权利要求中的非技术目的特征限定发明实际解决的技术问题，它在技术启示寻找环节中也发挥着导向作用。

影响计算机实施的发明新颖性的关键因素是算法或逻辑结构，而不是输入或输出数据。在物联网背景下，计算机实施的发明可能属于组合已知技术要素的发明，这类发明的创造性主要取决于是否产生了超出预期的协同性技术效果，它通常得益于不同功能模块或装置之间的连接关系或整体架构。利用常规系统分析和设计手段，实现商业规则或方法系统化的发明落入本领域技术人员普通创造能力所及范围，因此说明书中充分披露有关具体技术实施手段或步骤的内容也关系着创造性判定结论。算法的公开不必拘泥于特定形式，美国判例确立的用于判断说明书公开是否达到本领域技术人员能够实现程度的多项因素，为我国提供了可资借鉴的范例。总体而言，产业政策在很大程度上是决定计算机实施的发明可专利性宽严尺度的主要因素。

关键词：计算机实施的发明；可专利性；客体适格性；新颖性；创造性

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence（AI）has become the new center of international competition.For accelerating the construction of innovative country and science & technology powerful nation throughout the world,China improves the development of AI to the level of national strategy.There is no difference between AI and traditional software in the need of computer as technical means to read program codes and to produce predictable positive effects since AI algorithms would eventually transfer to complex program codes.Therefore,AI-related inventions should be viewed as a subset of computer-implemented inventions（CIIs）,applying the generally same patentability criteria: subject matter eligibility and substantive requirements.

Science and technology progress is naturally connected with patent regime.On one hand,new technology makes patent law response to the demands of market participants,granting inventors a monopoly with a certain period to encourage innovations and to promote technological information exchange and diffusion.On the other hand,the criteria for patent grant should match the actual technical contribution of invention.Underestimation of the criteria for patentability will result in the crisis of patent thicket and the tragedy of anti-commons,damaging the normal order of competition as well.Patent protection for inventions in computer-related field also follows this rule.

Major countries and regions have treated CIIs more tolerant with the influence of US patent policy.Compared with normal inventions,CIIs have four characteristics,namely interdisciplinary,focus on algorithms,cumulative innovationof software and overly broad claims.Hence,it is common that the determination of their patentability lacks certainty and consistency.In fact,CIIs shall satisfy the requirements of practical applicability,novelty,inventive step in addition to subject matter eligibility for obtaining patent protection.Those requirements are connected and independent with each other as a whole,in which they play distinct role in the sequence of patent eligibility→industrial applicability→novelty→inventive step to filter inventions that should not be patented.Based on the systematic interpretation of patentability,it is not appropriate to adopt such an approach that the examination of patent eligibility partially substitutes the examination of other substantive requirements.

It can be seen from the comparative study that there is a consensus on the essence of patentable inventions among China,US,Europe and Japan.A patentable invention is a technical solution which does not need the comparison with prior art.The divergence lies at whether the technical contributions should be considered when examiners determine the patent eligibility of CIIs.In China,the criteria for patentable inventions shall include three elements“technical problems”,“technical means”and“technical effects”,which actually measure the technical contributions in according to common general knowledge.The US applies a“two-step test”to distinguish an abstract idea from its practical application and to search an inventive concept subject to the standard that the functioning of a computer or other technology is improved.It is also a way of the estimation of technical contribution.While the meaning of technical contribution implies the necessity of the comparison with prior art so that it ought to fall into the function of novelty or inventive step assessment.At the stage of patent eligibility test,determination the“technical problem”to be solved and the“technical effect”to be achieved relying on personal experience and intuition is not reliable.The approach of Europe and Japan which emphasizes the importance of technical implementation means provides a reference for China to reconstitution the criteria for patentable inventions.CIIs can result in the change of electric currents which amounts to the application of natural rules,although they may not bring any tangible product.However,it does not mean that an invention stated in the claim is eligible as long as it includes the general-purpose computer as the sole technical means.Conversely,algorithms,functional data and their relationship with hardware that making such a technical solution enable should be sufficiently disclosed in the specification.

Prior art and person having ordinary skill in the art（PHOSITA）establish the frame of reference for the assessment of novelty and inventive step.As the technology of information and Internet wide application,the scope of search for prior art constantly expands,the general technical level of PHOSITA correspondingly lifting,especially for those AI-assisted creation activities.Yet it is necessary to limit this tendency to a reasonable extent that PHOSITA is able to anticipate.Whether the technical solutions automatic-generated by AI belong to prior art affecting the determination of novelty should be analyzed case by case on the basis temporal factors,degree of dissemination,the completeness,clarity and accuracy of the disclosure as well as the enablement requirement.Moreover,to carry out Peer-To-Patent program or Outsourcing model,to reform theinstitution of examination and to apply AI search and examination instruments might be useful to enhance the quality of prior search.It cannot be denied that PHOSITA refers to human with ordinary creativity rather than a machine or AI system.That is to say,a person having the common general knowledge in the field of computer technology,such as algorithms,systematization，programming,and the common general knowledge in that specific application field,for example finance,administration,biology,chemistry or mechanical engineering.PHOSITA may be defined as a team composed of experts from a plurality of technical with the consideration of the complexity of the technical problem asked to be solved.The issue whether PHOSITA should be defined as a person equipped with AI system relates to more than one factor,including the conventional practice,the dissemination of AI and the cost of use AI in the art.

Europe and China apply analogous“problem-solution approach”or“three-step approach”to assess inventive step.The experience of Europe shows that weakening the weights of“technical problem”and“technical effect”factors to patent subject matter eligibility would not lead to the floods of low-quality patents for the reason that the second threshold exits.The features of algorithms or business rules which mutually support and interact with technical features in function can be analyzed from both technical application and technical implementation aspects when the inventive step of CIIs is considered with the“three-step approach”.What is more,the objective technical problem must be so formulated as not contain pointers to the technical solution.At the meantime,it is accepted that some features in the claim that direct to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field would appear in the formulation of the problem.The guiding role of technical problem should not be neglected during the process of technical teaching too.

The key factor to novelty of CIIs is their algorithms or logical structure,but not the input or output.Under the background of Internet of Things,CIIs are likely to combination inventions whose inventive step mainly hinges on the relationship of linkage or integral architecture between different function module or apparatus.Generally speaking,inventions applying commonly used means of system analysis and design to bring about systematization of a rule or a method for doing business fall under exhibition of normal creation capabilities of PHOSITA.It appears that sufficient disclosure of technical means also has an impact on the determination of inventive step.To measure if the specification disclosed the algorithm in detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art was able to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation should build on the multi-factor test in In re Wands.It has a referential significance for China.Overall,industrial policy is the fundamental factor determining the scale of inventive step.

Key Words: computer-implemented inventions,patentability,subject matter eligibility,novelty,inventive step