The IPC reform was initiated in response to a need to adapt the existing IPC to make it a more efficient search tool for patent offices of all sizes and to exploit the possibilities of a modern, electronic environment.
The main features of the new IPC will be:
A stable core and a dynamic advanced level: the IPC will have a relatively stable subset of about 20 000 entries, known as the core level; in addition to this, there will be a dynamic advanced level, which will cover the entire set of entries in the IPC. This advanced level will be continuously updated.
Reclassification of older documents: whenever the IPC is changed, older documents published under an earlier version will be reclassified. In other words, it will be possible to search all documents by using the symbols of the latest IPC version.
Additional definitions: the US Patent Classification system, for example, has extensive sets of definitions. Similar definitions will be developed and incorporated into the new IPC.
Administration
The reform of the IPC will enter into force with edition 8, on 1 January 2006. As before, WIPO will be in charge of the administration of the IPC classification schemes. The reformed IPC will be published in July 2005, ie 6 months before entry into force.
All documents classified according to the IPC will be stored in a Master Classification Database (MCD), and managed by the EPO.
According to the EPO, the development of modern methods of electronic access and retrieval of information meant that it was necessary to adapt patent classification to the electronic age.
The EPO says that the IPC reform project was initiated in 1999. Close co-operation among industrial property offices was necessary for achieving the reform.
One of the important features of the reformed IPC is said to be the new principle of reclassifying all documents affected by a change in the classification scheme. As a result, it will be possible under the new IPC to search all documents using a single edition of the IPC.
Another important feature is the two-level structure which better satisfies differing needs of small, medium-sized and large industrial property offices and the general public. The two-level system consists of a "core" and an "advanced" level. The core level is a subset of the IPC without the finely divided subgroups. This will make it easier for less experienced or less specialised users to search or classify.
The EPO further asserts:
Consequences for the searcher
Using the two-level system
Over the 30 years or more that the IPC has been in use, it has become apparent that there is a need to simplify the use of the IPC for less specialised users, but at the same time to allow large patent offices to develop the IPC further by adding more detailed subgroups.
In order to solve this problem, it was decided to define a subset of the IPC (the “core level”) as a simplified classification system that could be used as a stand-alone tool, compatible with the full IPC (called the “advanced level”).
For an international search, ie a search aimed at retrieving prior art from all major industrial countries, the advanced level should be used. The PCT minimum documentation – and possibly more - will be classified in accordance with the latest version of the advanced level.
For a national search, ie a search directed at retrieving documents from a specific country, the core level will usually be sufficient. Some smaller patent offices will classify their documents according to the core level only, since its use requires much less specialist knowledge of the individual technical fields.
When the searcher is sure that the office in question classifies according to the advanced level, this level can of course also be used for a national search. However, when the number of documents is not very high, a core level search might still be appropriate because it will give more hits.
Documents classified in the advanced level will also receive the corresponding core level classification by an automated procedure. Therefore, a search in the core level will give complete results, whereas a search in the advanced level, although more precise, will only find documents belonging to the PCT minimum collection and documents of offices using the advanced level. After performing an advanced level search, searchers should consider doing a second search in the core level, because documents of some countries will only be classified according to the core level.
On the other hand, when classifications are being used only to limit the search to a broad technical area, eg when combining classification and text search, it could be a good idea to use the core level even for searching in international document collections, because this will result in documents from all countries and be less sensitive to variations in classification philosophy.
The document content to be classified
In the past, classifiers have focussed on the claims of a patent document. This was appropriate when most intellectual property offices published granted patents only. Nowadays, most offices publish patent applications before they are examined. This means that the content of the claims at the time of publication does not necessarily reflect the “real” invention or all the material that one would like to retrieve in a search.
In the rules for the reformed IPC, patent offices are recommended to classify not only the content of the claims, but also other important and possibly inventive aspects of the documents found in the description, examples or drawings. All such important features are to be classified as “invention information”. Other content in a document, which whilst being of lesser importance, may still have some search value, can be classified as “additional information”, as in the current IPC.
The distinction between “invention information” and “additional information” has only been visible on the printed document (separated by the “//” sign) up till now, but in future it will also be reflected in the databases, enabling more accurate searches.
IPC Indexing has been reduced to a minimum by converting most indexing schemes to classification. Instead of using indexing, in most cases the classifier can now simply give “additional information” classifications. The concept of linked indexing has been completely abolished, because it was never completely and consistently applied and the benefits for searching never outweighed the classification effort.
It is further said that
Changes to the IPC scheme will no longer be put on hold for up to five years until the next edition is published. This dynamic IPC, called the “advanced level”, will be continuously updated, if necessary, every three months, enabling experienced users to make more accurate searches for new technology with an up-to-date, detailed classification scheme.
For users with less advanced requirements or experience, there will be a relatively stable subset of about 20 000 entries, known as the “core level”. In the core level, symbols will only be changed when absolutely necessary, eg due to emerging technology. The update period is three years. All published patent documents will have a core-level IPC classification (in addition to any advanced-level classification given), so complete searches in this simplified system will be possible.
Whenever the IPC is changed, older documents published under an earlier version will be reclassified. In other words, it will be possible to search all documents by using the symbols of the latest IPC version.
Additional definitions will be available: the US Patent Classification system, for example, has extensive sets of definitions. Similar definitions will be developed and incorporated into the new IPC on a field-by-field basis.
The new IPC will include systematic classification of additional information on top of the classification directly related to the claimed invention.
I think that the most important aspect is whether or not such changess are indeed suitable to improve the quality of the search for prior art.
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
From the EPO website:
