專利是否能夠得到核准無疑是申請人所關心的課題，然而申請過程其實當花錢及花時間，因此，申請人在收到審查意見書（office action，簡稱OA）後，是否值得繼續投資時間及金錢，就常是一個困難的抉擇。本研究之內容為分析不同核駁理由及引證數量之專利核准率，希望藉此輔助申請人進行判斷在接到審查意見後是否繼續進行答辯、或是放棄。

本研究採用由美國專利及商標局（United States Patent and Trademark Office，簡稱USPTO）發佈的Office Action Research Dataset for Patents資料集，並分析其中申請號前兩碼為12之申請案之核准率。

本研究之分析分為兩個部分，其一是「不同核駁理由及OA次數與專利核准率之關係」，其二是「核駁時引證數量及OA次數與專利核准率之關係」。不同核駁理由又細分為：因適格性被核駁、因新穎性被核駁、因進步性被核駁與同時因新穎性及進步性被核駁四種；核駁時引證數量則細分為：核駁理由為新穎性且先前技術文件多於1份、核駁理由為進步性且先前技術文件多於3份與核駁理由為進步性且先前技術文件僅有1份三種。

根據本研究所獲得的數據，因適格性被核駁之申請案的總核准率為80.02%，較因新穎性被核駁之申請案的總核准率65.1%及因進步性被核駁之申請案的總核准率59.9%高出不少，由此可推論適格性並沒有想像中的難以克服。另外，核駁理由為新穎性且先前技術文件多於1份之申請案的總核准率為63.1%、核駁理由為進步性且先前技術文件多於3份之申請案的總核准為58.7%、以及核駁理由為進步性且先前技術文件僅有1份之申請案的總核准率為65.5%，由此可推論，就算申請專利範圍被多個先前技術文件所涵蓋也不一定會導致申請案難以被核准，而且相比之下可以發現結合多件先前技術文件並沒有比較容易答辯成功，反而是先前技術文件與通常知識的結合有較高的核准率。

Whether a patent can be granted or not is undoubtedly an issue that the applicants care about. However, the application process is costly and time consuming. Thus, after receiving the office action(OA), the applicant will face the problem to decide whether to continue the application process or not, and this is often a tough decision. The research focuses on analyzing patent grant rate of different rejection reasons and the number of citations, hoping to assist the applicants in determining whether to continue the defense or give up after receiving the OA.

The research uses the Office Action Research Dataset for Patents released by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and analyzes the grant rate of applications with the first two digits being 12 in the application numbers.

The analysis of this research is divided into two parts. The first one is the relationship between different rejection reasons and the number of office actions, and the grant rate. The second one is the relationship between the number of citations and the number of office actions, and the grant rate. The rejection reasons can be subdivided into four categories: lack of eligibility, lack of novelty, lack of non‑obviousness, and lack of novelty and non‑obviousness at the same time. The number of citations used in a rejection can be subdivided into three types: more than 1 citation used in rejection for lack of novelty, more than 3 citations used in rejection for lack of non‑obviousness, and only 1 citation used in rejection for lack of non‑obviousness.

According to the data, the overall grant rate of applications rejected due to lack of eligibility is 80.02%, which is higher than the overall grant rate of applications rejected due to lack of novelty (65.1%) and the overall grant rate of applications rejected due to lack of non‑obviousness (59.9%). Based on this result, it can be inferred that overcoming lack of eligibility is not as difficult as imagined. In addition, the overall grant rate of applications which more than 1 citation used in rejection for lack of novelty is 63.1%, the overall grant rate for applications which more than 3 citations used in rejection for lack of non‑obviousness is 58.7%, and the overall grant rate of applications which only 1 citation used in rejection for lack of non‑obviousness is 65.5%. This can be inferred that applications overlapping with multiple prior arts do not always imply they are more likely to be rejected. However, in contrast with those applications rejected by combing ordinary skill and only 1 prior art, those rejected by combing multiple prior arts are indeed more difficult to be granted.

Benner, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1556-1567.
Clarke, R. A. (2003). US Continuity Law and its Impact on the Comparative Patenting Rates of the US, Japan and the European Patent Office. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 85, 335.
Ebert, L. B. (2004). Patent Grant Rates at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop., 4, 108.
Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2012). Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Review of economics and statistics, 94(3), 817-827.
Lu, Q., Myers, A., & Beliveau, S. (2017). USPTO patent prosecution research data: Unlocking office action traits.
Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185-201.
Quillen, C. D., & Webster, O. H. (2001). Continuing patent applications and performance of the US patent and trademark office. Fed. Cir. BJ, 11, 1.
Quillen Jr, C. D., Webster, O. H., & Eichmann, R. (2002). Continuing patent applications and performance of the US Patent and Trademark Office-Extended. Fed. Cir. BJ, 12, 35.
Schuster, W. M., Davis, R. E., Schley, K., & Ravenscraft, J. (2020). An Empirical Study of Patent Grant Rates as a Function of Race and Gender. American Business Law Journal, 57(2), 281-319.
Thomas, S. (2009, September 21). Public Patent Application Information Retrieval. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FZVAXT62PPOPPY5&lang=DINO
35 U.S.C. §101(2018)
35 U.S.C. §102(2018)
35 U.S.C. §103(2018)
35 U.S.C. §112(2018)