Antonios Farassopoulos

Head of International Classifications and WIPO Standards Service

Global IP Infrastructure Department

Combined CPC/FI Introduction into the IPC

February 2011

2

Introduction

IPC not detailed enough for the searching needs of several Offices and of the public

Some Offices have developed more detailed local Classification systems, based on the IPC (ECLA, DEKLA, FI) or not (USPC)

ECLA, FI are regularly updated in all technical fields. They cover almost the totality of PCT min

EPO USPTO agreed to a common Classification based on ECLA (CPC)

3

Introduction

Search using the IPC possible in all international and national databases

Consultation of local Classifications available only in local databases

Syntax particular for each one, not always clear

Search using local Classifications possible for the public only in respective local databases

4

Introduction

Since ten years efforts for harmonization and development of the IPC could not meet the expectations

Main problem the need for intellectual reclassification of the back file and the lack of corresponding resources.

5

Proposal for a detailed integrated IPC Integrate the CPC and FI subgroups into the IPC in

parallel (new e- and j-groups) CPC and FI subgroups when integrating into the IPC

should follow IPC rules and conventionse.g. - common numbering system

- “others” subgroups in FI will not be introduced, instead hierarchically higher groups will be used

Symbols from both CPC and FI will be presented in “Int.Cl” field on patent documents. Provision of additional one letter code in ST.8 will differentiate between CPC and FI symbols

Subsequent harmonization will be carried out within the current framework of IP5 CHC and IPC/CE afterwards

6

Example 1(G01B: Measuring arrangements characterised by the use of optical means)

IPC (current)

FI

ECLA

FI

ECLA

7

IPC (future)

j-groups

e-groups

Alternative display Alternative display

common numbering common numbering systemsystem

follow IPC rules follow IPC rules and conventionsand conventions

(e.g. “Others” will not be included for j-groups)

8

IPC (future)

Alternative displayAlternative display

common trunkcommon trunk e-groups / CPCe-groups / CPC j-groups / FIj-groups / FI

9

IPC (current)

FI

ECLA

Example 2 (after partial harmonization (CHC F-projects)

10

FI

ECLA

IPC (current)

overlapping groups

11

j-groups

e-groups

IPC (future)

common trunk

agreed new subdivisions under the project F004

12

IPC (future)

Alternative displayAlternative display

common trunkcommon trunk e-groups / CPCe-groups / CPC j-groups / FIj-groups / FI

13

Example 3(G10L: Speech recognition)

IPC (current)

ECLA

no FI entry

14

IPC (future)

e-groups

no j-groups

15

FI

IPC (current)

no ECLA entry

16

j-groups

no e-groups

IPC (future)

17

Example 4: Partial acceptance

IPC (current)

ECLA

no FI entry

18

IPC (current)

ECLA

Allow for flexibility to use subdivisions partially

19

IPC (future)

common trunk

e-groups When resources for reclassification become available, these parts could be introduced into the common trunk groups.

20

IPC (future)

e-groups

common trunk

21

Choice of offices

Offices will select to classify their documents either in the common trunk groups only, or in e-groups / CPC or in j-groups / FI

e- and j- groups will not be rolled up to common trunk

22

ST8 and ST10/C level indicator

S Subclass

C main groups only

A common trunk (ct) groups only

E e- or ct groups (CPC)

J j- or ct groups (FI)

23

Reclassification during transitionFamilies classified in CPC: automatically transferred to common trunk and e-groups

Families classified in FI: automatically transferred to common trunk and j-groups

When an office decides to use e- or j- groups, it will reclassify those documents that have not been reclassified by the family propagation above with its own rhythm (incomplete reclassification indicated in the warnings of e- or j- groups)

Families having in both e- and j- symbols will keep both types of symbols

24

Timelines

e- and j- groups are introduced in one go in parallel. Two to three years are needed to adapt CPC and FI to the IPC, adapt IT systems, publication etc.

CHC project will harmonize e- and j- parts afterwards

25

Future revision procedure in areas including e- and j- groups

Revision of CPC or FI without impact on the common trunk by the offices owners of the CPC or FI respectively.Quality checking of new scheme using accelerated procedure only electronically and within a limited period of time (e.g. one month) by IB assisted by editorial boardHarmonization of e- and j-groups in order to be included into the common trunk will follow the current IP5 CHC – IPC/CE approach.Revision of large areas (e.g. subclasses, main groups) will follow the current IPC/CE approach.• However revision procedures should be simplified. • New approaches should be considered.

26

Advantages1. No need for major intellectual reclassification during the

integration phase. All offices can make the best use of detailed classification systems promptly and according to their resources.

2. Public users have a global picture of classification systems in one scheme and can search using only one type of symbols in one field (i.e. IC) in any database.

3. Examiners will learn easier than in the current situation j- and e- groups (e.g. using the parallel display). Such better knowledge will lead to easier revision or harmonization in the future.

4. Once all CPC/FI subdivisions are integrated into the IPC, search efficiency will be improved especially in areas where the current number of subdivisions in the IPC is insufficient.

27

Drawbacks

1. Need to include systematically ct, e- and j- symbols in a query in order to achieve complete search for the world wide documentation. However this is already the case today in a much more complicated way.

2. Some confusion (reform, simplification, ?) for external users, although first reaction seems positive.

28

Thank you