Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: China Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Longbu Zhang, Lungtin International IP Agent Ltd. Datum: February 6, 2009 Questions General Groups are asked to give a summary of the legal position as regards a patent for a purported selection invention in their jurisdiction in relation to the following: Q1 Legal developments on selection inventions What specific types of inventions are recognized under the concept of selection invention and are patentable in your jurisdiction? Do you have any examples of selection inventions in a field other than chemical, pharmaceutical or material science fields? A1: A selection invention refers to an invention made by selecting for purpose a smaller range of options or individual option not mentioned in the prior art from a larger range of options disclosed in the prior art. According to above definition, a selection invention is just as a sub-solution, particular solution or preferable solution of the solution described in the prior art. Therefore, a selection invention can be regarded as (similar to) a dependent claim of an independent claim, as shown in the figure 1. Prior art/independent Claim Dependent claim /Selection Invention Figure 1
The selection inventions may be sorted by the following two types: 1) Selection inventions by choosing a range of dimensions, parameter and component etc. Example 1: A composition Y with improved thermal stability, characterized by the use of a specified minimum content of a component X in the composition Y. Example 2: A method for quickly and softly cooking eggs, characterized by keeping the temperature of water containing said eggs at 60-80 degrees Celsius. 2) Selection inventions by choosing among a number of known possibilities of a feature. Example 1: Prior Art: A table consisting of a board, and four metal legs connected with said board by connecting members. Selection Invention: A foldable table consisting of a board, and four metal legs connected with said board by hinges. Example 2: Prior Art: A composition comprising active component A and any one auxiliary material of class C. Selection Invention: A high-effective composition comprising active component A and the auxiliary materials b and c of class C. We do not have any case of selection inventions in a field other than chemical, pharmaceutical or material science fields yet because we didn't collected it intentionally. Q2 Novelty Groups are asked to discuss any issues that should be considered with respect to the novelty of selection inventions. For example, is merely carving a range out of a broad prior art disclosure sufficient to make a selection invention novel? Is a different advantage or use, or the same advantage with an unpredictable improvement required for a selection invention to be novel? A2: Generally, novelty means that, before the filing date of the application, no identical invention had been publicly disclosed in publications in the country or abroad or had been publicly used or made known to the public by any other means in the country, nor had any other person filed previously with the Patent Office an application which described the identical invention and was published on or after the said date of filing.
If their technical fields, technical problems to be solved, technical solutions, and their expected effects are substantially the same, they (the invention and one reference) shall be regarded as identical inventions. In determining the novelty of an application, the examiner first of all determines whether the technical solution of the application being examined is substantially the same as that of the reference document. When an application is compared with the contents disclosed in the reference document, if the technical solution defined in a claim therein and the technical solution disclosed in the reference document are substantially the same, and the person skilled in the art from the solutions can conclude that both of them can be applied to the same technical field, solve the same technical problem, and have the same expected effects, then they can be regarded as identical inventions or utility models. In patent document (claim), an invention is described as or defined by a combination of technical features. With regard to selection inventions by carving or limiting a range out of a broad prior art disclosure, the original range doesn t take away the novelty of the new range according to the criterion of examination of novelty (3.2.4 Numerical Value and Numerical Range). It can be explicated that said new range makes a distinct feature for the selection invention and make it novel. That means a different advantage or use, or the same advantage with an unpredictable improvement is not required for a selection invention to be novel. However, without the different advantage or use stated in the description, the examiner maybe deny the novelty of the whole solution merely dependent on the new range with the reason of simple obvious replacement of features without no different advantage or use, although he/she often deny its inventiveness with the same reason. Two criteria which can be used in the judgment of novelty of selection inventions are given below. 1) Specific (Lower Level) Term and Generic (Upper Level) Term The disclosure in the specific (lower level) term takes away the novelty of the invention defined in the generic (upper level) term. For example, a product "made of copper" disclosed in a reference document takes away the novelty of an invention for the same product "made of metal". However, the disclosure of the product made of copper does not take away the novelty of an invention for the same product made of other specific metal. On the other hand, a disclosure in generic (upper level) term does not take away the novelty of an invention defined in specific (lower level) term. For example, a product "made of metal" disclosed in a reference document does not take away the novelty of an invention for the same product "made of copper". For another example, if the difference between the claimed invention and a reference document lies merely in that "chlorine" is used in the invention to replace "halogen" or another specific halogen "fluorine" in the reference document, the disclosure of "halogen" or "fluorine" in the reference document does not take away the novelty of the invention which is defined by "chlorine". 2) Numerical Value and Numerical Range If the claimed invention has a technical feature defined by numerical values or a continuous numerical range, such as the dimensions of a component, temperature,
pressure, and the content of components in a composition, while all other technical features are identical with those in the reference document, then the determination of novelty shall be conducted according to the following rules. (1) The two end points of the numerical range disclosed in the reference document take away the novelty of the invention in which the above-defined technical feature has discrete numerical values including one of the said two end points, but does not take away the novelty of the invention in which the above-defined technical feature is a numerical value at any point between the said two end points. Example: a method for making titanium dioxide photocatalyst, wherein the drying temperature is 40ºC, 58 ºC, 75 ºC, or 100 ºC. If the reference document disclosed a process for making titanium dioxide photocatalyst wherein the drying temperature is 40 ºC -100 ºC, it takes away the novelty of said claim in the case that the drying temperature is 40 ºC or 100 ºC, but does not take away the novelty of said claim in the case that the drying temperature is 58 ºC or 75 ºC. (2) Where the numerical values or numerical range of the above-defined technical feature fall within the range disclosed in the reference document and do not have any common end point with it, the reference document dose not take away the novelty of the claimed invention. Example 1: A piston ring for internal combustion engine, characterized in that the diameter of the piston ring is 95 mm. If the reference document disclosed a piston ring of 70-105 mm in diameter used in internal combustion engine, it does not take away the novelty of the said claim. Example 2: An ethylene-propylene copolymer, characterized in that the polymerization degree is 100-200. If the reference document disclosed an ethylenepropylene copolymer in which the polymerization degree is 50-400, it does not take away the novelty of the said claim. Q3 Inventive step or non-obviousness Groups are asked to discuss the inventive step or non-obviousness requirements in their jurisdiction. If experimental data is used to back up the inventive step or nonobviousness requirement can it be submitted after initial patent filing? Are there any prerequisites or limitations on the late submission of data? A3: Generally, Inventiveness of invention means that, as compared with the existing technology before the date of filing, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents notable progress. Because a selection invention is as just a sub-solution/preferable solution/particular solution as stated above, so the assessment of selection inventions is relatively simple. In assessment of the inventiveness of selection invention, the main factor to be considered is whether the selection can bring about unexpected technical effect.
If a selection invention produces unexpected technical effect, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents notable progress, and thus involves inventiveness. Example: in a prior art document disclosing the production of thiochloroformic acid, the proportion of catalytic agent of carboxylic acid amide and/or urea to 1 mol raw material mercaptan is more than 0 and less than or equal to 100 % (mol). In the given example, the amount of the catalytic agent is 2% (mol)-13% (mol), and it is indicated that the productivity starts to increase from 2 mol% of the amount of catalytic agent. Moreover, the skilled person generally turns to increase the amount of catalytic agent in order to improve productivity. In the selection invention concerning a process for producing thiochloroformic acid, less amount of catalytic agent is used (0.02%(mol)- 0.2% (mol)), but the productivity is increased by 11.6%-35.7%, greatly exceeding the expected productivity, and moreover, the processing of reactant is also simplified. All of these show that the technical solution selected by the selection invention has produced unexpected technical effects and thus the selection invention involves inventiveness. In the judgement of inventiveness of a selection invention, if experimental data used to back up the inventiveness is needed, the data should be given in the original filing documents. The experimental data submitted after initial patent filing maybe admitted and helpful for the examination on this selection invention, for example in the case of overcoming a prejudice, but they wouldn t be adopted into the patent documents to be published. Q4 Sufficiency and/or written description requirements Groups are asked to discuss the sufficiency or written description requirements in their jurisdiction. There may be several aspects to this question: (1) the threshold for sufficiency; With respect to item (1), please discuss to what extent all members of the class selected by the patentee are required to possess the requisite advantage in your jurisdiction. Is there an absolute requirement that all of the selected class possess the relevant advantage, or is the patentee excused if one or two examples fall short? (2) the allowable timing for submission of experimental data; (3) the time frame within which sufficiency or written description requirements must be satisfied; and (4) the breadth of claim scope that can be supported by a limited number of examples of asserted or proven advantages. Also, with respect to item (4) above, if a new utility is asserted as a selection invention, would it suffice to claim a particular range or selection of components which have been found to be associated with such a new utility or would it be necessary to recite such a new utility in the claims? A4: The description of selection inventions should be clear, completed and enablement according to explanations on the requirement of description of application for invention in the Guidelines for Examination. The contents of the description of selection invention shall be clear, and specifically shall disclose the technical problem the invention aims to solve and the technical solution adopted to solve the problem; and state, with reference to the background art, the unexpected effect or new use of the selection invention. The said technical
problem, technical solution and unexpected effect or new use shall be adapted to one another and free of contradiction or irrelevancy. A complete description of selection invention shall include all the technical contents which are necessary for understanding and carrying out the invention, as follows: (1) the contents that are needed for determining whether or not the invention possesses novelty, inventive step and practical applicability, such as the technical problem to be solved by the invention, the technical solution adopted to solve the problem, and the advantageous effects of the invention; and (2) the contents that are needed for carrying out the invention, such as the mode for carrying out the technical solution adopted to solve the technical problem of the invention. For a selection invention that overcomes a prejudice, the description shall explain why the invention is said to have overcome the prejudice, the difference between the new technical solution and the prejudice, and the technical means adopted to overcome the prejudice. The description shall enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention. It means that the person skilled in the art can, in accordance with the contents of the description, carry out the technical solution of the invention, solve the technical problem, and achieve said unexpected technical effect. The description shall clearly set forth the technical solution of invention, describe in detail the specific modes for carrying out the invention, and entirely disclose the technical contents necessary for understanding and carrying out the invention, to such an extent that a person skilled in the art can carry out the invention. If the examiner can reasonably doubt that the invention does not meet the requirement of sufficient disclosure, he will invite the applicant to make a clarification. The following are examples of the circumstances in which the technical solution described in the description is regarded as unable to be carried out due to lack of technical means to solve the technical problem and achieve the expected technical effects: (1) The description sets forth a technical means, but the means is so ambiguous and vague that a person skilled in the art cannot concretely implement it according to the contents of the description; (2) The description sets forth a technical means, but a person skilled in the art cannot solve the technical problem of the invention and achieve said unexpected technical effects by adopting the said means; (3) The subject matter of an application is a technical solution consisting of several technical means, but one of the means cannot be implemented by a person skilled in the art according to the contents of the description; and (4) The description sets forth a concrete technical solution but without experimental evidence, while the solution can only be established upon confirmation by experimental result. For example, in general, the invention of a new use for a known compound requires experimental evidence in the description to validate the new use and effects thereof; otherwise, the requirement of enablement can not be met.
(5) The technical solution sought to be protected including multiple possibilities, but one or more of them cannot be implemented or cannot achieve said unexpected effect, Therefore, there is an absolute requirement that all of the selected class in a selection invention possess the relevant unexpected effect or advantage effect. And it is obvious that the experimental data which supports a selection achieving the said expected technical effects should be given in the original description of the selection invention. Otherwise, the application for patent for a selection invention will be rejected due to uncompleted and/or non-enablement. In some cases, in which the examiner ask for such experimental data in Office Action and there are no any doubt on it, for example in the case of overcoming a prejudice, the experimental data submitting after the filing day may be accepted and helpful for the grant of patent for the selection invention, but they wouldn t be adopted into the patent documents to be published. With regard to the claims of selection inventions, it can be as reasonably broad as it can be supported by a number of examples in the description, if only there is no doubt that the person skilled in the art can not, in accordance with the contents of the description, carry out the technical solution of the invention, solve the technical problem, and achieve the expected technical effects. The claim of selection invention shall be based on the description, and shall define clearly and concisely the scope for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. If a new utility is asserted as a selection invention, it would suffice to claim a particular range or selection of components which have been found to be associated with such a new utility, when the description gives the clear statement in relative modes or embodiments. It is not necessary to recite such a new utility in the claims although it may be allowed. Q5 Infringement If a certain advantage or superior results were the reasons for the grant of a patent on a selection invention, does such advantage or superior result have to be implicitly or explicitly utilised by a third party for an infringement to be established? If a selection invention is claimed as a new use, what are the requirements to establish infringement? Would a manufacturer of a product that may be used for the new use infringe the patent? Does the intention of an alleged infringer play any role in the determination of infringement? A5: About scope of protection and Infringement of selection inventions, the following is our comments. As shown in figure 2, because a selection invention is just as a sub-solution, particular solution, or preferable solution, so the scope of protection for selection invention is within the scope of solution of the prior art. Using the claim-analyzing method of features-congregating, figure 2 shows a example of protection scopes of technical solution of prior art and those of related selection invention. In this example, the technical solution of the prior art has the feature A and feature B, and the selection invention is made by choosing a known
possibility b among the known possibilities of feature B. As shown in figure 2, the protection scope of the technical solution of the prior art is the overlapped region (A+B) of the region A (extension of feature A) and the region B (extension of feature B), the protection scope of the selection invention (A+b) is the overlapped region of the region A (extension of feature A) and the region b (extension of feature b). Since the feature b is selected from the known possibilities of feature B, the region b is within the region B, and the scope of protection for the selection invention (A+b) is certainly fallen into the scope of protection for the prior art (A+B). A A+B A+b b B Fig. 2 Therefore, the selection invention is dependent with the prior art. If there is a patent granted for the said prior art, the patent makes limitation on the implementation of the related selection inventions. That means the implementation of the selection invention infringes the patent granted for the said prior art. On the other hand, if a patent is also granted for the selection invention, it also makes limitation on the implementation of the prior art. That means any one including the patentee of the prior art, can not implement the sub-solution, particular solution or preferable solution defined by the selection invention. Furthermore, if a third part implement the sub-solution, particular solution or preferable solution defined by the selection invention, it infringes both the patent of the prior art and the patent of the selection invention. In China, the court uses the principal of all feature-covering to judge infringement. If an implementation (a product, a method or an application) contains all of the features (in claim) of an invention, an infringement is established. Otherwise, no infringement is established if an implementation (a product, a method or an application) don t contain all of the features (in claim) of an invention. There is no special treatment for selection invention on judgement of infringement as I know. That means said principal is also adapted on judgement of infringement of selection inventions. Therefore, a certain advantage or superior result doesn t have to be implicitly or explicitly utilised by a third party for an infringement to be established although such advantage or superior results are the reasons for the grant of a patent on a selection invention. That means that the advantage or superior result is not necessary for judgement of infringement of selection inventions. However, logically, an implementation (a product, a method or an application) that contains all features of a selection invention does possess those advantages or superior results that are the reasons for the grant of a patent on a selection invention, unless the selection invention is counterfeited. If a selection invention is claimed as a new use, the requirements to establish infringement should be come from those for the patent type of applying or use
invention. When a product made by a manufacturer is obvious to the claimed new use, or has specification or indication for the claimed new use, or actually be used for the claimed new use and make loss of the patentee of the selection invention, the manufacturer infringes the patent. Therefore, the intention of manufacturer (alleged infringer) plays an important role of the fact of infringement, which is certainly also a role in the determination of infringement. Q6 Policy Groups are asked to give a short commentary as to the policy that lies behind the law on selection inventions in their jurisdictions, and then to consider whether or not such policy considerations are still valid today as technology continues to advance. A6: Selection inventions usually occur in the technical fields of chemical, pharmaceutical and material science. Nowadays, patentability and infringement about selection inventions become more and more important in pharmaceutical industry. However there is no policy that lies behind the law in China as I know. And there is not much research on this issue. So the discussion/research on this Title organized by AIPPI is timely and helpful. With Reference to the Examples Q7 Novelty In example 1 would the prior disclosure of the compounds containing the generic class of radicals anticipate any claim to a specific compound having a particular radical, or group of specific compounds having a selection of particular radicals in your jurisdiction? In the analysis, does it matter how wide the prior disclosed generic class of compounds is i.e. would the analysis be different if the prior disclosed generic class consisted of 1,000,000 possible compounds (very few of which were specifically disclosed) as opposed to merely, say, 10? A7: The following is our opinion on novelty of the invention by selecting specific compounds, which is provided by Mrs. Xiaoyin Wu and translated into English. the prior disclosure of the compounds containing the generic class of radicals anticipate doesn t take away novelty of the invention by selecting a specific compound having a particular radical, or group of specific compounds having a selection of particular radicals. In the analysis of novelty, it doesn t matter how wide the prior disclosed generic class of compounds is. But it may be a role in the analysis of inventiveness. Please also refer to the answer of Q2. Q8 Inventive step or non-obviousness
In example 2 would any of the three possibilities constitute an inventive step over the prior art in your jurisdiction? Further, if, say, scenario (iii) does constitute an inventive step over the prior art, what scope of protection should the inventor be able to obtain? Should the inventor be able to obtain protection for the products per se (that happen to have this advantageous property), or should any patent protection available be limited to the use of the products for the advantageous property (as an adhesive) not possessed by, and not obvious over the prior art? A8: In example 2, the scenario (i) and scenario (ii) don t constitute an inventiveness over the prior art in China. However, the scenario (iii) may constitute an inventiveness over the prior art in China. The following is our suggested claim that may be granted: Claim 1: A chemical compound, its structure include a substituent group designated "R", said substituent "R" is defined so as to embrace a generic class of broadlydefined functional groups such as all alkyl or aryl radicals, either unsubstituted or substituted by a halogen and/or a hydroxyl group, characterized in that said compound consists of the selection of a particular radical or particular group of radicals from amongst the generic class. With reference to the answers to Q1 and Q5, the claim 1 protect a product, a chemical compound, with said structure and particular radical or particular group of radicals. The advantageous property of the chemical compound is stated in the description but not in the claim 1. And logically, a same product (with said structure and particular radical or particular group of radicals) does possess the advantageous property stated in the description. Any one who manufactures this product does infringe the patent of product, no matter whether the product is used for the advantageous property (as an adhesive). Q9 Sufficiency and/or written description requirements To what extent are all members of the class selected by the patentee required to possess the requisite advantage in your jurisdiction? Is there an absolute requirement that all of the selected class possess the relevant advantage, or is the patentee excused if one or two examples fall short? A9: The description of selection inventions should be clear, completed and enablement according to explanations on the requirement of description of application for invention in the Guidelines for Examination. The contents of the description of selection invention shall be clear, and specifically shall disclose the technical problem the invention aims to solve and the technical solution adopted to solve the problem; and state, with reference to the background art, the unexpected effect or new use of the selection invention. The said technical problem, technical solution and unexpected effect or new use shall be adapted to one another and free of contradiction or irrelevancy. A complete description of selection invention shall include all the technical contents which are necessary for understanding and carrying out the invention, as follows:
(1) the contents that are needed for determining whether or not the invention possesses novelty, inventive step and practical applicability, such as the technical problem to be solved by the invention, the technical solution adopted to solve the problem, and the advantageous effects of the invention; and (2) the contents that are needed for carrying out the invention, such as the mode for carrying out the technical solution adopted to solve the technical problem of the invention. For a selection invention that overcomes a prejudice, the description shall explain why the invention is said to have overcome the prejudice, the difference between the new technical solution and the prejudice, and the technical means adopted to overcome the prejudice. The description shall enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention. It means that the person skilled in the art can, in accordance with the contents of the description, carry out the technical solution of the invention, solve the technical problem, and achieve said unexpected technical effect. The description shall clearly set forth the technical solution of invention, describe in detail the specific modes for carrying out the invention, and entirely disclose the technical contents necessary for understanding and carrying out the invention, to such an extent that a person skilled in the art can carry out the invention. If the examiner can reasonably doubt that the invention does not meet the requirement of sufficient disclosure, he will invite the applicant to make a clarification. The following are examples of the circumstances in which the technical solution described in the description is regarded as unable to be carried out due to lack of technical means to solve the technical problem and achieve the expected technical effects: (1) The description sets forth a technical means, but the means is so ambiguous and vague that a person skilled in the art cannot concretely implement it according to the contents of the description; (2) The description sets forth a technical means, but a person skilled in the art cannot solve the technical problem of the invention and achieve said unexpected technical effects by adopting the said means; (3) The subject matter of an application is a technical solution consisting of several technical means, but one of the means cannot be implemented by a person skilled in the art according to the contents of the description; and (4) The description sets forth a concrete technical solution but without experimental evidence, while the solution can only be established upon confirmation by experimental result. For example, in general, the invention of a new use for a known compound requires experimental evidence in the description to validate the new use and effects thereof; otherwise, the requirement of enablement can not be met. (5) The technical solution sought to be protected including multiple possibilities, but one or more of them cannot be implemented or cannot achieve said unexpected effect, Therefore, there is an absolute requirement that all of the selected class in a selection invention possess the relevant unexpected effect or advantage effect. And it is
obvious that the experimental data which supports a selection achieving the said expected technical effects should be given in the original description of the selection invention. Otherwise, the application for patent for a selection invention will be rejected due to uncompleted and/or non-enablement. In some cases, in which the examiner ask for such experimental data in Office Action and there are no any doubt on it, for example in the case of overcoming a prejudice, the experimental data submitting after the filing day may be accepted and helpful for the grant of patent for the selection invention, but they wouldn t be adopted into the patent documents to be published. With regard to the claims of selection inventions, it can be as reasonably broad as it can be supported by a number of examples in the description, if only there is no doubt that the person skilled in the art can not, in accordance with the contents of the description, carry out the technical solution of the invention, solve the technical problem, and achieve the expected technical effects. The claim of selection invention shall be based on the description, and shall define clearly and concisely the scope for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. If a new utility is asserted as a selection invention, it would suffice to claim a particular range or selection of components which have been found to be associated with such a new utility, when the description gives the clear statement in relative modes or embodiments. It is not necessary to recite such a new utility in the claims although it may be allowed. Q10 Infringement By reference to example 3 to what extent is evidence of the knowledge of the advantageous property of the selection, or intention of the infringer as to its supply, required to find infringement in your jurisdiction? A10 In example 3, if the chemical compound is claimed as used as adhesive, when the same product (with said structure and particular radical) made by a manufacturer is obvious for use as an adhesive, or has specification or indication for the use of adhesive, or actually be used as adhesive and make loss of the patentee of the selection invention, the manufacturer infringes the patent. Therefore, the intention of manufacturer (alleged infringer) plays an important role of the fact of infringement, which is certainly also a role in the determination of infringement. Q11 Policy Groups are asked to consider, in respect of example 1 / 2, whether it matters how much effort the inventor has invested in arriving at his selection in order to found a valid selection patent. The answer to this question is closely related to the policy considerations that underpin the grant of selection patents and the incentive / reward equation involved. The inventor may have expended considerable time and money in trawling through the whole host of possible compounds encompassed by the prior disclosed generic class, and the particular selection that he has made may constitute a leap-forward in the field. Surely the inventor should be rewarded for his efforts and obtain protection? On the other hand, it could be argued that such considerations may have been relevant in an age when the inventor's efforts actually involved many man-years of careful and painstaking laboratory work, but are now increasingly irrelevant in an age of combinatorial synthesis when large varieties of different
compounds can be manufactured in a fraction of the time. Are such considerations relevant? A11: Generally, no matter how much effort the inventor has invested in arriving at his selection in order to found a valid selection patent in the present Chinese patent law system. It is difficult to assess and make thing complex. Furthermore, there is no any barrier to granting patents for selection inventions in the system. Harmonisation Q12 Groups are asked to analyse what should be the harmonised standards for the patentability of selection inventions. In particular, the items discussed in Q1-Q6 and the examples discussed in Q7-Q10 above should be referred to. A12: The definition, type, novelty, inventiveness should be the harmonised standards for the patentability of selection inventions. Q13 Groups are also asked to recommend any issues for harmonisation not referred to in Q11 above. A13: N/A Q14 Groups are asked to outline any other potential issues that merit discussion within AIPPI as regards selection inventions. A14: The judgement of non-selection invention that looks like infringing the patent of prior art discussed in Q10 above. Refers to the special case in pharmaceutical in the paper titled Patentability and Infringement of Selection Inventions. Note: The above opinions about selection inventions and relative explanation and explication to Articles, Rules, Provisions, Descriptions and Examples in the Chinese legal documentations are only come from the author s knowledge and experiences, and relative understanding to those in said Chinese legal documentations. They should be only as reference if there is any official text and document related to selection inventions.