TW201324422A - Method and system of patent-review - Google Patents

Abstract

The invention is related about a kind of method and system of patent-review, and the system includes a database module, a patent applicant subsystem, a judge subsystem, a management subsystem, a patent audit subsystem, a member management subsystem and a communication subsystem; the method is about using the system for online delivery of patent applications; to construct a judge patent personal database; to select at least two judge members of the relevant background expertise for reviewing work of the patent applications; to decide the review result by the review comment of the judge members; to send the review result; further, to recommend a suitable outsourcing contractor and patent applications of the patent business office; in order to provide the patent examination agencies, companies, schools, hospitals and research institutions having examination patent needs to implement.

Description

Patent review method and system

The invention relates to a patent review method and system, in particular to a patent application that can be used according to different technical backgrounds, and automatically selects relevant background expertise of the jury members, and pairs the patent examinations to achieve fairness and fairness.

With the advancement of the times and the popularization of industrial knowledge, the competition in various technical fields has become more and more fierce. Therefore, each company will apply for a patent to protect products or technologies, and will not be copied and copied after being disclosed. There is usually a review mechanism for patent cases to be filed internally, but it is limited by the influence of manpower or financial resources. It is not possible to select auditors with relevant background expertise for review according to the technical background of different cases, so it is difficult to minimize Within the time limit, the patent case is reviewed, and after approval, the patent office is filed.

The application procedure for a general patent case is to first submit the patent document to the patent examination authority, and then review it through the review committee of the relevant background expertise. However, due to the background expertise of the review committee, is it related to the technical background of the patent application? Matching, whether there is sufficient professional ability, it is not unreasonable to review the patent case; whether it is a patent auditor of a general company or a reviewer of a patent examination authority, it is easy to review or review, Due to the intervention or interference of external forces, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of full fair and impartial review and review.

Although there is a patent case No. 200928820 of the Republic of China on July 1, 1998, "Automatic update system and method for reviewing the progress of patent cases", it mainly discloses: a method for automatically updating the progress of patent case review, the method includes the following steps When the information of the patent case needs to be updated, the application server obtains the application place and the application number of the patent case to be updated from the database connected thereto; and generates the patent to be updated according to the application place and the application number of the obtained patent case to be updated. a list of cases; logging in the official patent website server corresponding to the application place in the list of patent cases to be updated; and querying the patent to be updated on the corresponding official patent website server according to the patent application number in the list of patent cases to be updated The information of the case; and when the information of the patent case to be updated that is queried is new information, the new information is updated into the database. In addition, the present invention also provides an automatic update system for the review of patent cases.

However, the patent case can only inquire about the progress of the examination of the relevant patent application, but it is also impossible to have a fair and impartial review mechanism for the patent application, nor can it recommend the examiner with the best relevant background expertise. The patent application is subject to patent review, so it is not ideal in use.

Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned shortcomings of the patent examination operation, the present invention provides a patent evaluation system, which is provided with a database module, which includes a patent application database, a patent database and a review. Member's talent database, which stores and files all the proposed patent applications, and the patent database is to import and store all the patent office materials that can be patented and applied for by the company. The jury member database is a collection of jury members with different background expertise; a patent applicant subsystem is linked to the patent application database, which includes an application document management module and a delivery a management module, the application document management module receives the patent application filed; a review member subsystem is linked to the evaluation member talent database, and the review member subsystem includes a review expertise classification module Group and a review operation management module, the review expertise classification module is for the jury member The reviewer's data in the library is classified into different background expertise; a manager subsystem is linked to the database module, which includes a review committee management module, a review progress and state management module. a group, an authorization certificate management module and a patent office recommending an outsourcing module, wherein the jury member management module is linked to the jury member talent database, and the patent office recommends the outsourcing module to link to the Patent office database; a patent review subsystem, which is linked to the manager subsystem, the patent review subsystem includes a patent classification module, a pair of anonymous review modules, and a review recommendation module, wherein The patent classification module is linked to the patent application database, so that the patent application filed in the patent application database is classified according to different technical backgrounds, and the double anonymous review module is in accordance with the classified patent. In the application case, the jury members of the background expertise are randomly selected through the manager subsystem, and the review recommendation module is judged by the jury members. See, to review the results.

The above-mentioned delivery management module is for all the patent applications submitted, and is input into the patent application database, and the review operation management module provides the evaluation committee for the patent application that has been allocated, and performs the review operation. Management and inquiry.

The above-mentioned jury member management module classifies and manages the judging members in the jury member's talent database, and the review progress and status management module manages and tracks the progress of the patent examination, and the authorization certificate management module The management, review, tracking and filing of one of the authorized certificates issued by the patent office, and the patent office recommending the outsourcing module for the patent application after review and approval, and the patent office shall undertake and file the patent. Management and tracking of progress after application.

Further comprising a member management subsystem, which is linked to the patent review subsystem, the member management subsystem includes a member registration module and a basic data maintenance module, the member registration module is for registration, filling in a personal background Expertise and E-MAIL account, and establish a set of account and password at the same time as the voucher for each login, and the basic data maintenance module will confirm and maintain the data when logging in, and record each login message.

Further comprising a communication subsystem, which is respectively connected to the judging panel subsystem and the manager subsystem, the communication subsystem includes an automatic transceiving E-MAIL module, a forum forum module and a common Q&A assembly The module, wherein the automatic E-mail module automatically sends notifications by E-mail, and the forum forum module constructs a discussion forum or forum through the network to provide a communication platform, and the common Q&A collection Modules are aggregated for all responses and then posted on a discussion forum or forum on the web.

The invention is also a patent review method, including: an online delivery patent application: the patent applicant sends a patent application through the network, and classifies and files according to the technical background of the patent application. In the patent application database; construct a jury member talent database: it is classified according to different background expertise, and is classified in the jury's talent database; at least two relevant backgrounds are selected. The jury members of the specialty began the review operation: using a patent review subsystem based on the technical background of the classified patent application and the background expertise of the jury members, and then randomly selecting the most suitable at least two jury members, and then Submit the paired patent application to the two jury members for review. If one of the invitees replies and cannot be reviewed, the deferred invitation will be paired with the third overall number and a review will be made. Opinion; based on the review opinions of the two reviewers, the results of the review are determined: the patent review subsystem is based on Review comments of the jury, and validation of the results of its review of the Department for the patent or patent application for approval of nuclear barge; notification findings: validation notice sent to the patent applicants to inform their assessment results, and review comments attached.

The formula for calculating the proximity index of the above-mentioned patent applicant's background expertise and the background expertise of the jury members: talent matching index = academic weight × academic category factor gap total score + experience weight × experience category factor gap total score + copyright weight × work category Total score of factor gap;

R=Wi/Σ∣Xm-Xn∣+Wj/Σ∣Ym-Yn∣+Wk/Σ∣Zm-Zn∣;

Wi: academic weight; Wj: experience weight; Wk: copyright weight; Xm: applicant's department; Xn: jury member's department; Ym: applicant experience; Yn: jury member experience; Zm: applicant's work; : The jury's work; the talent matching calculation factor, including academic qualifications, experience and writings, including academics, departments and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise and service units, while the work includes There are master's thesis, journals, seminars, magazines, books and patents; and the formula for calculating the proximity index of the patent application of the patent applicant and the background expertise of the jury: patent application matching index = academic weight × academic category factor Gap total score + experience weight × experience category factor gap total score + copyright weight × book category factor gap total score;

P=Wi/Σ∣Pm-Pn∣+Wj/Σ∣Qm-Qn∣+Wk/Σ∣Rm-Rn∣;

Wi: academic weight; Wj: experience weight; Wk: copyright weight; Pm: the patent application required for the patent applicant's patent application; Pn: the jury member's department; Qm: patent applicant's patent application Experience required for review; Qn: Judges experience; Rm: Patent work required for the patent applicant's patent application; Rn: Judge's work; Computational factor for the patent application, including academic qualifications , experience and writings, where the qualifications include schools, departments and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise and service units, while the work includes master's thesis, journals, seminars, magazines, books and patents; The formula for calculating the average number of patent applications per year for each jury: fair distribution index = (the current number of patent applications filed / the total number of jury members) - the number of individual cases reviewed this year;

　　　

A: number of patent applications; T: total number of jury members; R: number of individual cases reviewed; program algorithm: step 1: calculate the talent matching index of each jury member and patent applicant; step 2: calculate each person The matching index between the background expertise of the jury and the patent application of the patent applicant; Step 3: Calculate the gap between each jury member and the fair distribution index; Step 4: Select the most suitable jury member based on the above calculation, there are jury members Random selection is made when the score is the same.

The review projects of the above review operations include: the novelty of patents, the advancement of patents, the practicability of patents, the importance of patents, the relevance and integrity of other patents, the correctness and rigor of patents, and the organization of patents. Structure and business value or application value, and the grades of each review project are: excellent, excellent, ordinary, poor and very poor, and the review opinions include: strong recommendation, recommended recommendation, tendency recommendation, tendency rejection, Proposed rejection and strong rejection.

The evaluation opinions of the above two jury members are polarized, and the third jury member is selected for review. The options for comparing the content of the review opinions are revised, recommended, revised, resubmitted, resubmitted, and returned. According to the review results of the three jury members, a majority decision was taken.

Further, after the approval of the patent application, a suitable patent office is recommended to undertake the patent application.

The invention has the following advantages:

1. The invention can automatically and randomly select the jury members of the relevant background expertise according to the different technical backgrounds of the patent application, and carry out the patent review operation, so as to achieve the purpose of fairness and fairness.

2. The patent applicant and the jury member of the present invention all adopt an anonymous method, so the review operation is completely confidential, and the communication is carried out online, so it is not affected or interfered by external forces.

3. The invention can distribute the patent application evenly and submit it to the jury for review work, so the workload can be shared equally to avoid the accumulation of cases, and the distribution of the number of cases is fair and the digestion process is completed quickly.

4. In the present invention, at least two jury members at the same time review the patent application. If the evaluation gap between the two jury members is too large, the department will automatically select the third jury member to join the judging operation, so as to achieve complete objectification. Review.

5. The invention is applicable to patent examination authorities, companies, schools, hospitals and research institutes, and units with patent examination requirements are implemented to establish an optimal patent evaluation system.

First, referring to the first figure, the present invention is a patent review system, which includes a database module (1), a patent applicant subsystem (2), a review committee subsystem (3), and a manager. System (4), patent audit subsystem (5), member management subsystem (6) and communication subsystem (7), wherein:

The database module (1) includes a patent application database (11), a patent office database (12), and a jury member talent database (13), wherein the patent application database (11) is It is possible to import and store the patent applications filed by all patent applicants (A) and file them, and the patent office database (12) is available for import and storage of all patents that can be commissioned and The information of the patent office applied for, and the talent database of the jury (13), which is available for the input and storage of all the judges (B) with different background expertise, will be filed.

The patent applicant subsystem (2) is linked to the patent application database (11), and the patent applicant subsystem (2) includes an application document management module (21) and a delivery management module ( 22), wherein the application document management module (21) receives a patent application filed by the patent applicant (A) via the Internet, and the delivery management module (22) is directed to all patent applications filed , input to the patent application database (11) and file.

The jury subcommittee (3) is linked to the jury member talent database (12), which includes a review expertise classification module (31) and a review operation management module ( 32), wherein the review expertise classification module (31) classifies different background expertise for the jury members (B) in the jury member database (13), which includes at least academic qualifications, experiences, and writings. The review operation management module (32) provides a review committee (B) to manage and query the assigned patent applications during the review operation.

The manager subsystem (4) is linked to the database module (1) and is operable by a management personnel (C) to log in. The manager subsystem (4) includes a jury member management module. (41) a review progress and status management module (42), an authorization certificate management module (43), and a patent office recommendation outsourcing module (44), wherein the jury member management module (41) Linked to the jury member's talent database (13) for random selection and management of the jury (B) in the jury's talent database (13), and the review progress and status management module (42) The management and tracking of the review process of the patent application is carried out to control the completion of the patent review within the time limit. The authorization certificate management module (43) manages the authorization certificate executed by the patent applicant (A). Review, track and document, and the patent office recommended outsourcing module (44) is linked to the patent office database (12), which is used by the patent office for the patent application approved after the review. And manage and track the progress after the patent application is filed.

a patent audit subsystem (5) coupled to the manager subsystem (4), the patent audit subsystem (5) comprising a patent classification module (51), a pair of anonymous review modules (52), and a review recommendation module (53), wherein the patent classification module (51) is linked to the patent application database (11), whereby the patent application filed in the patent application database (11) is The different technical backgrounds are classified, and the double anonymous review module (52) randomly selects the relevant background expertise of the jury (B) according to the classified patent application according to the classified patent application, and the review The recommendation module (53), based on the review opinion of the jury (B), makes the evaluation result. If the evaluation result is approved, the patent application is filed.

a member management subsystem (6), which is linked to the patent audit subsystem (5), the member management subsystem (6) includes a member registration module (61) and a basic data maintenance module (62). The member registration module (61) is for all patent applicants (A), jury members (B) and management personnel (C) to be pre-registered before login and fill in the personal background of the patent applicant (A). Expertise and other information and E-MAIL account, the background expertise includes at least academic qualifications, experience and writings, and at the same time establish a set of account and password as a voucher for each login, and the basic data maintenance module (62) is targeted Each registrant performs data validation, maintenance, and records each login message.

The communication subsystem (7) is respectively connected to the judging panel subsystem (3) and the manager subsystem (4), and the communication subsystem (7) includes an automatic transceiving E-MAIL module (71) a discussion forum module (72) and a common Q&A assembly module (73), wherein the automatic transmission and reception E-MAIL module (71) is based on the entire review process, in the patent applicant (A), review Between the member (B) and the manager (C), any notice of the results of the review, the need to modify the content, or any matter requiring a contact notice will be automatically sent by E-mail, and the forum forum module (72) ) to construct a discussion forum or forum through the Internet to provide a platform for communication between all patent applicants (A), jury members (B) and managers (C), and the common Q&A aggregation module (73) is targeted at All questions raised by the response are aggregated and then published on a discussion forum or forum on the Internet.

The present invention is also a patent review method, which is implemented in conjunction with the patent review system described above, as shown in the first and second figures, and includes:

Online application for patent application: Patent applicant (A) can send a patent application to a patent applicant subsystem (2) through the Internet. After receiving the patent, the patent applicant subsystem (2) will After the patent application is classified by different technical backgrounds, it is stored in a patent application database (11), and then notified to the patent applicant (A) that the patent application has been received through an automatic E-mail module (71). case.

To construct a jury member's talent database: it uses the review expert classification module (31) of a jury member subsystem (3), classifies it according to the jury members (B) with different background expertise, and classifies the classified information. Store and document in a jury member's talent database (13).

Two reviewers with the same background expertise were selected by a patent review subsystem: through a double anonymous review module (52) of a patent review subsystem (5), according to the aforementioned patent application database (11) The technical background of the patent application, as well as the background expertise of the jury members in the jury's talent database (13), after matching, randomly select the two most suitable jury members. If one of the invitees responds, the review is not possible. , the deferred invitation will be paired with the third pick of the appropriate person. The following is the formula for calculating the proximity index of the patent applicant's background expertise and the jury's background expertise when pairing:

Talent Matching Index = Education Weight × Education Category Factor Gap Total Score + Experience Weight × Experience Category Factor Gap Total Score + Copyright Weight × Work Category Factor Gap Total Score;

R=Wi/Σ∣Xm-Xn∣+Wj/Σ∣Ym-Yn∣+Wk/Σ∣Zm-Zn∣

Wi: academic weight

Wj: experience weights

Wk: Copyright

Xm: Department of patent applicants

Xn: Department of the jury

Ym: Patent applicant experience

Yn: Judges experience

Zm: Patent applicant's work

Zn: Jury member's work

The talent matching calculation factor, as shown in the third figure, contains academic qualifications, experience, and writings. The academic qualifications include schools, departments, and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise, and service units. It includes master's thesis, journals, seminars, magazines, books and patents.

The following is the formula for calculating the proximity index of the patent application of the patent applicant and the background expertise of the jury:

Patent application matching index = academic weight × academic category factor gap total score + experience weight × experience category factor gap total score + copyright weight × book category factor gap total score;

P=Wi/Σ∣Pm-Pn∣+Wj/Σ∣Qm-Qn∣+Wk/Σ∣Rm-Rn∣

Wi: academic weight

Wj: experience weights

Wk: Copyright

Pm: the department required for the patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed

Pn: Department of the jury

Qm: The experience required for a patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed

Qn: Jury member experience

Rm: the patent work required for the patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed

Rn: Jury members' work

The patent application matching degree calculation factor, as shown in the fourth figure, contains academic qualifications, experience and writings. The academic qualifications include schools, departments and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise and service units. The book contains master's thesis, journals, seminars, magazines, books and patents.

The following is the calculation formula for the average allocation of annual patent application cases to the jury members:

Fair Distribution Index = (the current number of patent applications filed / the total number of jury members) - the number of individual cases reviewed this year;

　　

A: Number of patent applications

T: The total number of jury members

R: Number of cases reviewed by individuals

Program algorithm

Step 1: Calculate the talent matching index of each jury member and patent applicant.

Step 2: Calculate the matching index of the background expertise of each jury member and the patent application of the patent applicant.

Step 3: Calculate the amount of gap between each jury member and the fair distribution index.

Step 4: According to the above calculation, select the most suitable jury member. If there is a jury member with the same score, then make a random selection.

The management staff will indicate the list of judging members: the management personnel (C) will verify and confirm the selected two jury members (B1) and (B2). After confirmation, the paired patent applications will be passed through The automatic E-mail module (71) is sent to the two jury members (B1) and (B2).

Beginning of the review: After receiving the patent application, the two reviewers (B1) and (B2) began to review the contents of the patent application. The patent review project is shown in the fifth chart. It includes: the novelty of the patent, the advancement of the patent, the practicability of the patent, the importance of the patent, the relevance and completeness of other patents, the correctness and rigor of the patent, the organizational structure of the patent and the commercial value or application value. The grades of each review project are: excellent, excellent, ordinary, poor and very poor, and the review comments include: strong recommendation, recommended recommendation, tendency recommendation, tendency rejection, recommendation rejection and strong rejection.

The management personnel decides the evaluation result based on the review opinions of the jury members: the review recommendation module (53) compares the evaluation results made by the two jury members (B1) and (B2) after the review, and the comparison is reviewed. As shown in the sixth figure, the results include four options: revised recommendation, revised review, return/review, and return. For example, the two reviewers (B1) and (B2) review during the review. If the opinions are strongly recommended, the result of the review is the revised recommendation; if one of them is rejected by the recommendation and the other is strongly recommended, the result of the review is revised and then reviewed; if one is rejected, another If the recommendation is recommended, the result of the review is the return/re-review; if one is strongly rejected and the other is recommended, the result of the review is the return; if the management (C) confirms the above results, According to the results of the review, the patent application approval or patent application verification is approved.

When the evaluation opinions of the two jury members are polarized, the third jury member will be automatically selected for review: after comparing the evaluation opinions of the two jury members, if the above two jury members (B1) and (B2) When the review comments are polarized, if one is strongly rejected and the other is strongly recommended, then the jury member management module (41) selects the third jury (B3) for review, and then according to the three The reviewers of the reviewers (B1), (B2) and (B3) adopt a majority decision, that is, the closest review by two of the reviewers (B) is the result of the review to verify that the patent application is Patent application approval or patent application verification.

Notification result: The patent application (A) is sent to the patent applicant (A) through the automatic E-mail module (71), and the evaluation opinion is attached to notify the evaluation result of the patent application approval or patent application verification, or Revise and review.

Recommended patent office outsourcing: When the result of the evaluation is patent application approval, the patent office can also recommend the outsourcing module (44) from the patent office database (12), which is recommended to be suitable for the patent application. The patent office undertakes and submits a patent application to it; if the invention is implemented in the patent examination authority for patent examination, the patent applicant may be notified of the examination result directly after the patent is approved, and there is no need to have this. Recommend the steps of the patent office to go outside the process.

However, the above description is only one of the preferred embodiments of the present invention, and the scope of the patent application and the contents of the description of the present invention are not limited thereto. All should still fall within the scope of protection covered by the scope of the patent application of the present invention.

(1). . . Database module

(11). . . Patent application database

(12). . . Patent office database

(13). . . Jury member database

(2). . . Patent Applicant Subsystem

(twenty one). . . Application document management module

(twenty two). . . Handing management module

(3). . . Jury committee

(31). . . Review Expertise Classification Module

(32). . . Review job management module

(4). . . Manager subsystem

(41). . . Jury member management module

(42). . . Review progress and status management module

(43). . . Certificate of authority management module

(44). . . Patent office recommended outsourcing module

(5). . . Patent audit subsystem

(51). . . Patent classification module

(52). . . Anonymous review module

(53). . . Review recommendation module

(6). . . Member management subsystem

(61). . . Member registration module

(62). . . Basic data maintenance module

(7). . . Communication subsystem

(71). . . Automatically send and receive E-MAIL module

(72). . . Forum forum module

(73). . . Common Q&A assembly module

(A). . . Patent applicant

(B), (B1), (B2), (B3). . . Jury

(C). . . manager

The first figure is a schematic diagram of the system configuration of the present invention.

The second figure is a flow chart of the operation of the method of the present invention.

The third figure is a schematic diagram of the calculation factor of the talent matching degree of the present invention.

The fourth figure is a schematic diagram of the calculation factor of the matching degree of the patent application of the present invention.

The fifth figure is a schematic diagram of the patent review project of the present invention.

The sixth figure is a schematic diagram of the content of the review results of the present invention.

(1). . . Database module

(11). . . Patent application database

(12). . . Patent office database

(13). . . Jury member database

(2). . . Patent Applicant Subsystem

(twenty one). . . Application document management module

(twenty two). . . Handing management module

(3). . . Jury committee

(31). . . Review Expertise Classification Module

(32). . . Review job management module

(4). . . Manager subsystem

(41). . . Jury member management module

(42). . . Review progress and status management module

(43). . . Certificate of Management

(44). . . Patent office recommended outsourcing module

(5). . . Patent audit subsystem

(51). . . Patent classification module

(52). . . Anonymous review module

(53). . . Review recommendation module

(6). . . Member management subsystem

(61). . . Member registration module

(62). . . Basic data maintenance module

(7). . . Communication subsystem

(71). . . Automatically send and receive E-MAIL module

(72). . . Forum forum module

(73). . . Common Q&A assembly module

(A). . . Patent applicant

(B). . . Jury

(C). . . manager

Claims (10)

A patent review system that includes:
A database module includes a patent application database, a patent office database, and a jury member talent database, which stores and files all proposed patent applications, and the patent transaction The database is to import and store all the patent office materials that can be patented and applied for by the outside party. The judging panel of the judging panel is to store the information of the jury members with different background expertise;
A patent applicant subsystem is linked to the patent application database, the patent applicant subsystem includes an application document management module and a delivery management module, and the application document management module receives the delivery Patent application;
a judging panel subsystem, which is linked to the jury member talent database, the judging panel subsystem includes a reviewing expertise classification module and a reviewing operation management module, and the reviewing expertise classification module is for the jury member The reviewer's information in the database is used to classify different background expertise;
a manager subsystem coupled to the database module, the manager subsystem comprising a review committee management module, a review progress and status management module, an authorization certificate management module, and a patent transaction The recommended outsourcing module, wherein the jury member management module is linked to the jury member talent database, and the patent office recommends the outsourcing module to be linked to the patent office database;
A patent review subsystem is linked to the manager subsystem, and the patent audit subsystem includes a patent classification module, a pair of anonymous review modules, and a review recommendation module, wherein the patent classification module is linked To the patent application database, the patent applications filed in the patent application database are classified according to their different technical backgrounds, and the double anonymous review module is processed according to the classified patent application. The subsystems randomly select the jury members related to the background expertise, and the review recommendation modules are based on the review opinions of the jury members. The patent review system of claim 1, wherein the delivery management module inputs the patent application to the patent application database, and the review operation management module provides the The jury members manage and inquire about the patent applications that have been assigned to them during the review operation. For example, the patent review system described in claim 1 of the patent application, wherein the jury member management module classifies and manages judging members in the judging panel of the jury member, and the review progress and state management module is for patents. The progress of the review is managed and tracked. The authorization certificate management module manages, reviews, tracks and files the authorization certificate issued by the patent office, and the patent office recommends the outsourcing module for the approval of the evaluation. The patent application is managed and tracked after the commissioning of the patent office and the filing of a patent application. For example, the patent review system described in claim 1 further includes a member management subsystem linked to the patent review subsystem, the member management subsystem includes a member registration module and a basic data maintenance module. The member registration module is for registration, filling in personal background expertise and E-MAIL account, and at the same time establishing a set of account and password for each login, and the basic data maintenance module is for login. Data confirmation, maintenance, and recording of each login message. For example, the patent review system described in claim 1 further includes a communication subsystem, which is respectively connected to the judging panel subsystem and the manager subsystem, and the communication subsystem includes an automatic transceiving E-MAIL module. a group, a forum forum module and a common Q&A assembly module, wherein the automatic E-mail module automatically sends notifications by E-mail, and the forum forum module constructs a discussion area through the network or The forum provides a communication platform, and the common Q&A collection module aggregates all the questions raised by the response and then publishes them on the discussion forum or forum on the Internet. A method of patent review, including:
Online patent application: The patent applicant sends a patent application through the Internet, and according to the different technical background of the patent application, it is classified and filed in a patent application database;
To construct a judging panel of talents for the judging panel: it is classified by the jury members with different background expertise and classified in the talent database of the jury;
Select at least two jury members with relevant background expertise to begin the assessment exercise: use a patent audit subsystem to select the most suitable based on the technical background of the classified patent application and the background expertise of the jury members. At least two jury members will then submit the paired patent applications to the two judging members for review and make a review. If one of the invitees fails to reply, they will Inviting to match the third pick of the appropriate person;
According to the evaluation opinions of the two jury members, the evaluation result is determined: the patent examination subsystem is based on the evaluation opinions of the jury members, and the evaluation results are verified as patent application approval or patent application reconciliation;
Notification review results: Send the verification notice to the patent applicant, notify the evaluation result, and attach the review opinion. For example, the patent review method described in item 6 of the patent application scope, wherein the patent applicant's background expertise and the jury member's background expertise are calculated by the proximity index:
Talent Matching Index = Education Weight × Education Category Factor Gap Total Score + Experience Weight × Experience Category Factor Gap Total Score + Copyright Weight × Work Category Factor Gap Total Score;
R=Wi/Σ∣Xm-Xn∣+Wj/Σ∣Ym-Yn∣+Wk/Σ∣Zm-Zn∣;
Wi: academic weight;
Wj: experience weight;
Wk: copyright weight;
Xm: the department to which the applicant belongs;
Xn: the department of the jury;
Ym: applicant experience;
Yn: Judges experience;
Zm: the applicant's work;
Zn: the work of the jury;
The talent matching calculation factor includes qualifications, experience, and writings. The qualifications include schools, departments, and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise, and service units, while the work includes master's thesis and journals. , seminars, magazines, books and patents;
The formula for calculating the proximity index of the patent application of the patent applicant and the background expertise of the jury member:
Patent application matching index = academic weight × academic category factor gap total score + experience weight × experience category factor gap total score + copyright weight × book category factor gap total score;
P=Wi/Σ∣Pm-Pn∣+Wj/Σ∣Qm-Qn∣+Wk/Σ∣Rm-Rn∣;
Wi: academic weight;
Wj: experience weight;
Wk: copyright weight;
Pm: the department required for the patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed;
Pn: the department of the jury;
Qm: the experience required for the patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed;
Qn: Judges experience;
Rm: the patent work required for the patent applicant's patent application to be reviewed;
Rn: the work of the jury;
The patent application matching degree calculation factor includes academic qualifications, experience and writings, wherein the academic qualifications include schools, departments and degrees, while the experience includes seniority, position, expertise and service units, while the works include master's thesis. , journals, seminars, magazines, books and patents;
The formula for calculating the average number of patent applications per year for each jury:
Fair Distribution Index = (the current number of patent applications filed / the total number of jury members) - the number of individual cases reviewed this year;

A: number of patent applications;
T: the total number of jury members;
R: number of cases reviewed by individuals;
Program algorithm:
Step 1: Calculate the talent matching index of each jury member and patent applicant;
Step 2: Calculate the matching index of the background expertise of each jury member and the patent application of the patent applicant;
Step 3: Calculate the gap between each jury member and the fair distribution index;
Step 4: According to the above calculation, select the most suitable jury member, and if there are jury members with the same score, then make a random selection. For example, the patent review method described in claim 6 includes the novelty of the patent, the advancement of the patent, the practicability of the patent, the importance of the patent, and the relevance of other patents. And integrity, the correctness and rigor of the patent, the organizational structure of the patent and the commercial value or application value, and the grades of each review project are: excellent, excellent, ordinary, poor and very poor, and the review comments are Contains: strongly recommended, recommended, recommended, inclined, rejected, and strongly rejected. For example, in the patent review method described in item 6 of the patent application scope, the evaluation opinions of the two jury members are polarized, and the third jury member is selected for review. The options for comparing the content of the review opinions are modified. After the recommendation, revision, re-inspection, return/re-review and return, and based on the review results of the three reviewers, a majority decision is taken. For example, if the patent application method mentioned in item 6 of the patent application scope is applied, after further approval of the patent application, a suitable patent office is recommended to undertake the patent application.