ChatGPT功能强大，让很多人真切感受到新时代的来临。找ChatGPT朝圣过吗？第一次拜读ChatGPT的开释，是惊叹？惊喜？惊慌？惊吓？
图片来源 : shutterstock、达志影像
ChatGPT人气席卷全球，许多人当它是进阶版Google大神，备好问题请ChatGPT指点迷津，并在网络上公开ChatGPT各项解答。结果一如各方所说，ChatGPT撰写回复的速度及逻辑组织能力非常让人惊艳，只不过，依所看到网络公开的一项测试结果（见下方框格中的英文文字），ChatGPT仍有重大缺陷：虽然法条条次引用精准，但法条内容张冠李戴，以致最终给出的回复结论错误。
测试问题及答案分析
该显示的测试问题（下称本问题）是：美国设计专利申请案能否主张美国暂时案优先权？而ChatGPT回复如下：
Yes, a US design application can claim the benefit of a provisional application under certain conditions.
In the United States, a provisional patent application can be filed to establish an early filing date for an invention. A provisional application can be filed for a utility patent or a design patent. If a design patent applicant has previously filed a provisional application for the same invention, the applicant may claim the benefit of the provisional application in the non-provisional design application.
To claim the benefit of a provisional application, the non-provisional design application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application filing date. The non-provisional design application must also include a specific reference to the provisional application, such as its application number, filing date, and title. The reference must be included in an application data sheet or in the specification of the non-provisional application.
It is important to note that the non-provisional design application must claim the same invention that was disclosed in the provisional application. If the non-provisional application claims a different design, then it cannot claim the benefit of the provisional application. |
这答案明显有问题。先前网络上也曾有人分享类似状况，问ChatGPT英国分割案必须达到各项规定要件的官方期限时，ChatGPT虽补抓到2023年新法生效讯息，但最后却给出错误解答。其中一项主要原因，推测是ChatGPT的回答必然受其训练所喂数据限制，因此若是2021年后的数据数据，ChatGPT目前的处理能力有限。[1]
事实上，为提供本问题回复的法源依据，ChatGPT引用了正确的法条条次，即35 U.S.C. 172。只不过，拜读它所摘录的法条内容，令人更加困惑：
The provisions governing the benefit of a provisional application for a non-provisional design application can be found in 35 U.S. Code § 172, which states:
"(a) Benefit of Earlier Filing Date.—An application for patent for a design that is filed under this chapter by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously filed an application for patent for the same design, as defined in section 171, in a foreign country which affords similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States, or in the United States, may have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country or the United States, whichever is earlier, if the application in this country is filed within six months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed.
(b) Provisional Application.—An application for patent for a design may be filed under section 111(b) of this title in the same manner as is provided for a utility patent application. Any such application for patent for a design filed under this section shall be designated as a provisional application for design patent application and shall be subject to the conditions and requirements of this section, except as otherwise provided.
(c) Effect of Provisional Application.—A provisional application for a design patent shall be accorded a filing date and shall be designated as such. The filing of a provisional application for a design patent shall not constitute the filing of an application for purposes of section 102 of this title. A provisional application for a design patent shall not mature into a patent unless the requirements of sections 112, 131, and 151 of this title are complied with within the time period provided in section 119(e) of this title.
(d) Benefit of Provisional Application.—The right of priority provided for in section 119 of this title shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of such section."
The specific requirements for claiming the benefit of a provisional application for a non-provisional design application can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, 37 C.F.R. § 1.78. |
查对35 U.S.C. 172现行条文[2]，仅有以下两个句子。而其中第二句明文规定，美国设计案不适用35 U.S.C. 119(e)的暂时案优先权主张规范。
The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not apply to designs. |
美国1994年12月8日颁布联邦公法第103-465号《乌拉圭回合协议法》（Uruguay Round Agreements Act，简称URAA），导入暂时案制度，当时即一并于URAA Sec. 532(c)(2)修订35 U.S.C. 172 ，新增第二句条文，明示美国设计案不适用35 U.S.C. 119(e)的暂时案优先权主张规定。是以，美国从未赋予设计申请案申请人主张美国暂时案优先权的机会。[3]换言之，即便是2021年前既有的数据资料，ChatGPT也不一定能采辑组织出正确的回复内容。
ChatGPT能否自主撰写专利稿件？
除专利问题咨询外，专利人难免关注ChatGPT能否自主撰写专利稿件？有人曾出题实测，请ChatGPT针对订书机、回形针写申请专利范围，依其贴出的ChatGPT所写请求项内容，AI系统的产出发展着实教人印象深刻。不过再深入分析后发现，ChatGPT写出的请求项范围过于狭窄，且AI似乎无法「理解」弯折一圈的回形针范围包括多绕几圈的回形针，显然，完全信任AI代写专利稿件，现在还不是时候。[4]
虽然不能用ChatGPT自己撰写专利稿件，那ChatGPT至少可用做协助撰稿？不，万万不可！ChatGPT的FAQ明白警告使用者勿在对话中分享机密信息，因为系统和真人训练人员有可能检视这些对话内容，也就是说，不论这些内容是否真有ChatGPT系统人员看到，双方既无保密协议，有可能被视作公开揭露（尽管第三方不易证明）。再进一步说，用户输入的机密数据，没人知道会否被用以训练ChatGPT，甚至有无可能之后在ChatGPT和其他使用者对话时被揭露。[5]
另一个有趣的专利面议题是：AI可否用以证明一发明显而易见？假定AI可自行发明创造，其回复即与显而易见问题无关；若AI无发明创造能力，其论述就有可能反映习知信息及其组合。有事务所做了测试并分享测试数据及结果，其结论是：受提示工程（prompt engineering）、AI幻觉（hallucination）等因素限制，ChatGPT回复有可能是事实错误、内容矛盾的论述，现阶段的证据价值有限。不过，Microsoft最近大手笔砸入百亿美元再投资OpenAI，长此以往，几年后或许就不难想象会有这么一天：AI产出证据能在专利诉讼派上用场。[6]
而在那天到来之前，AI使用者仍需谨慎做好自己的功课。实际上，发现ChatGPT引用的35 U.S.C. 172条文出错后，本问题发问人曾再追问所录法条是否为现行条文，结果得到ChatGPT以下回复：
The provision I cited, 35 U.S. Code § 172, is the latest version of the statute governing the benefit of earlier filing dates for design patent applications as of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021. However, it is possible that the provision may be amended or updated in the future. It is always a good practice to check for the latest version of the statute or regulation before taking any legal action or making any important decisions. |
诚哉斯言！在采取任何法律行动或做出任何重要决定之前，再查一次最新适用法规总是有益无害。
备注：
好消息～北美智权报有微信公众号了！
《北美智权报》内容涵盖世界各国的知识产权新闻、重要的侵权诉讼案例分析、法规解析，以及产业与技术新知等等。
立即关注北美智权微信公众号→ NAIP_IPServices
～欢迎读者分享与转发～ |
 |
|
|
