Patentable Subject Matter for AI-Related Inventions in Singapore and China
17 Dec 2024
With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) applications across industries, innovators in Singapore and China are increasingly seeking patent protection for AI-related inventions. This article examines the types of AI-related inventions that may or may not be allowed for patent protection and highlights the similarities and differences in how Singapore and China assess AI-related patent applications.
What AI-Related Inventions are Patentable in Singapore?
In Singapore, in determining whether or not the claims define an “invention”, the Examiner takes into account the substance rather than the form of the claims in order to identify the actual contribution made by the claimed subject matter, having regard to the problem to be solved, how the claimed subject matter works, and what its advantages are.
Claims relating to a computer-implemented business method would be considered an invention if the various technical features (e.g. servers, databases, user devices etc.) interact with the steps of the business method (i) to a material extent; and (ii) in such a manner as to address a specific problem. For example, AI-related inventions with specific technical contribution, such as using the method in controlling the navigation of an autonomous vehicle, are typically patentable in Singapore.
AI-related inventions that merely involve abstract algorithms, theoretical models, or methods with no clear technical contribution are generally non-patentable. For example, a generic AI model for predictive analysis would be viewed as too abstract to warrant patent protection. The mere fact that a mathematical method may solve a specific problem is unlikely to be sufficient. The claim should be functionally limited to solve the specific problem, either explicitly or implicitly.
What AI-Related Inventions are Patentable in China?
In China, an AI-related invention can be eligible only if it constitutes a technical solution. When determining whether the solution is a technical solution, the technical means, technical problems, and technical effects are three important factors, and will be considered as a whole.
Examination focuses on solutions for which protection is sought for, i.e., solutions defined by each claim. An AI-related invention generally contains rules and methods for mental activities such as algorithms or rules and methods for business.
The examination does not separate the technical features from the algorithmic features or features of rules and methods for business, but takes all the contents described in a claim as a whole, analyze the technical means involved, the technical problems solved and the technical effects obtained.
If a claim merely relates to an algorithm, or mathematical computing rules, or computer programs per se, or computer programs recorded in mediums (such as tapes, discs, optical discs, magnetic optical discs, ROM, PROM, VCD, DVD, or other computer-readable mediums), or rules or methods for games, etc., it falls into the scope of the rules and methods for mental activities and does not constitute the subject matter for which Chinese patent protection may be sought.
If the solution of an invention application relating to computer programs involves the execution of computer programs in order to solve technical problems, and reflects technical means in conformity with the laws of nature by computers running programs to control and process external or internal objects, and thus technical effects in conformity with the laws of nature are obtained, the solution is a technical solution and is the subject matter of patent protection.
Common Principles in Singapore and China
Singapore and China share several key criteria in evaluating AI-related inventions.
Both jurisdictions require that AI-related inventions solve specific technical problems, with an identifiable technical contribution beyond pure mathematical algorithm.
Mathematical models, algorithms, and abstract intellectual concepts are non-patentable on their own unless they demonstrate technical effects in a tangible application.
Key Differences Between Singapore and China
China adopts a “three-element criterion (i.e., technical problem, technical means and technical effect)” to determine the technical solution. Under this criterion, a technical solution should aim for solving a technical problem, by using technical means in conformity with the laws of nature and can produce technical effect in conformity with the laws of nature.
While in Singapore, determining if a patent claim defines an invention involves: (i) Properly construing the claim; (ii) Identifying the actual contribution; and (iii) Asking if the actual contribution falls solely within subject matter that is not patentable.
If the actual contribution is found to fall solely within non-patentable subject matter, the claim is not considered to define an invention. If the actual contribution of an AI-related patent claim solves a specific (as opposed to a generic) problem, then it is likely not solely a mathematical method.
Strategic Considerations for Filing AI-related Patent Applications in Singapore and China
It is important to Demonstrate Clear Technical Effects. Emphasize how the AI-related invention provides a technical effect or solves a specific problem. Describe how the invention improves or optimizes a technical process, system, or device, as both jurisdictions require this to establish technical merit.
In China, the guideline specifies that: Description of an invention application that contains algorithmic features or features of rules and methods for business shall clearly and completely set forth the adopted technical solution to solve its technical problem. On the basis of containing technical features, the solution may further contain algorithmic features or features of rules and methods for business that functionally support each other and have an interaction relationship with the technical features.
Given China’s stringent technical specificity requirements, applicants should prepare extensive technical documentation, including possible examples of industrial uses and measurable technical outcomes. This level of detail can support the application’s technical argument and increase the chances of approval.
Conclusion
Singapore and China offer valuable opportunities for securing patent protection for AI innovations. However, given the stringent patentable subject matter requirements in both jurisdictions, inventors and applicants of AI related patent applications must understand the differences and adapt their approach to meet each country’s unique criteria. By focusing on clear technical contributions and addressing a specific technical problem, innovators can increase their chances of securing patent protection in these rapidly advancing technological landscapes.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute any legal advice.