Combined CPC/FI Introduction into the IPC
February 2011
Antonios Farassopoulos
Head of International Classifications and WIPO Standards Service
Global IP Infrastructure Department
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 conventions
e.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)
ECLA
FI
FI
ECLA
7
IPC (future)
Alternative display
j-groups
e-groups
common numbering
system
follow IPC rules
and conventions
(e.g. “Others” will not be
included for j-groups)
8
IPC (future)
Alternative display
common trunk
e-groups / CPC
j-groups / FI
9
Example 2 (after partial harmonization (CHC F-projects)
IPC (current)
ECLA
FI
10
IPC (current)
overlapping groups
ECLA
FI
11
IPC (future)
common trunk
agreed new subdivisions
under the project F004
e-groups
j-groups
12
IPC (future)
Alternative display
common trunk
e-groups / CPC
j-groups / FI
13
Example 3
(G10L: Speech recognition)
IPC (current)
no FI entry
ECLA
14
IPC (future)
no j-groups
e-groups
15
IPC (current)
no ECLA entry
FI
16
IPC (future)
no e-groups
j-groups
17
Example 4: Partial acceptance
IPC (current)
no FI entry
ECLA
18
IPC (current)
Allow for flexibility to use
subdivisions partially
ECLA
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)
common trunk
e-groups
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 jgroups / FI
e- and j- groups will not be rolled up to common trunk
22
ST8 and ST10/C level indicator
S
C
A
E
J
Subclass
main groups only
common trunk (ct) groups only
e- or ct groups (CPC)
j- or ct groups (FI)
23
Reclassification during transition
Families 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 board
Harmonization 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
Advantages
1. 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