convention

宣誓供述書の書き方について(2):米国(Part 2)

[例2] この例においては、[例1]のように宣誓供述書の供述内容を別紙のExhibit(甲号証又は乙号証)とはしていません。また、発明者以外によって署名された例です。

内容としては、医療装置(変形爪の矯正装置)に関する二次的考慮事項(商業的成功など)に関して提出したものです。(米国出願の中間処理において弊所が実際に提出したものに基づいていますが、固有名詞・用語・数値などは適宜変更してあります。)

(商業的成功に関する宣誓供述書の書式の1例)

IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Applicant:Taro YAMADA
Serial No.:XX/XXX,XXX
Filed:XXXX, 20XX
For:APPARATUS FOR CORRECTING AN INGROWN NAIL
Art Unit:3772
Examiner:Dan HICKS

 



DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.132

 

    I, Goro Kimura, a Japanese citizen residing at XXXX, Tokyo, Japan, declare and say: 
    I was graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, XXX University in March 2005.
    In April 2005, I entered XYZ Clinic where I have been practicing the treatment of hallux valgus and ingrown nails.
    I am well familiar with the present case.
    I read and understood the Office Action dated XXXX, 2011 and references cited therein. I have carried out treatments of ingrown nails with the apparatus disclosed in claim 1 of the present application at XYZ Clinic following the instructions given by Mr. Taro Yamada who is the director of the clinic and is the inventor of the present application. Some of the results of the treatments are as reported in the website of XYZ Clinic at http://www.adcdefg-hijk.com.
    In the website, three cases of treatments are reported.  The treatments were performed using an apparatus as shown in Fig. A attached hereto.  As can be seen from Fig. A, the apparatus falls within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
    As to the three cases (cases 1 to 3), the nails before and after the treatments are shown in Figs. B, C and D attached hereto, which are also shown at the above-mentioned website of XYZ Clinic.  In each of the tree treatments, the apparatus as shown in Fig. A was used as mentioned above.  Further, the reagents and operations in cases 1 to 3 were substantially the same as recited in Example 1 of the present application (paragraphs [00XX] to [00XX] of the specification of the present application) except that the inclination angle A of the lifting members, the lifting intervals and the nail correcting force were slightly varied depending on the characteristics of the ingrown nails of the patients.  As reported in the website of XYZ Clinic, the details of cases 1 to 3 are as follows.

Case 1:
Patient's gender and age:
    A female in her 30's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient wished to avoid a painful treatment because she had heard her acquaintance's report about having received a very painful operation for correcting an ingrown nail at another hospital which seemed to have been carried out without anesthesia.  The patient came to XYZ Clinic because she was attracted by the painless treatment of this clinic.

Results:
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. B by a single treatment which took about only 30 minutes.  The patient was satisfied with the results of the treatment because the ingrown nail had been corrected without feeling any pain during and after the treatment.

Case 2:
Patient's gender and age:
 
    A female in her 40's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient had a previous experience of nail-correction using a wire device which is to be hooked to the edges of the ingrown sides of the nail and is designed to lift the ingrown sides by pulling the hooked portions of the wire toward the center of the nail.
    However, she needed to go to the hospital so frequently that it became troublesome to her. As a result, the patient stopped going to the hospital before the completion of the nail correction.
    The patient also had a previous experience of nail-correction using a correction plate which is to be adhered on the surface of an ingrown nail and lifts the ingrown sides of the nail by the spring force of the plate, but the plate came off from the nail soon.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. C by performing twice an approx. 30-minute treatment, and the patient was pleased with the result.

Case 3:
Patient's gender and age: 
    A female in her 50's.

Patient's background: 
    Previously, the patient had her ingrown nail corrected by treatment using a wire device similar to that used by the patient of case 2, which treatment lasted about 18 months. However, the ingrown nail recurred after the termination of the treatment.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. D by a single approx. 30-minute treatment.  During and after the treatment, the patient did not feel any pain nor uncomfortable feeling.

    Finally, it should be added that almost all of the 900 patients having received this treatment so far were very satisfied with the results.

    From the above, it is apparent that the apparatus of the present invention surely enables the correction of an ingrown nail within a very short period of time, 1.e., within about 30 minutes to about 1 hour, with a very simple operation and without causing any pain nor uncomfortable feeling to the patent.
    Thus, the apparatus of the present invention has realized a surprisingly easy and effective treatment which is far more advantageous than the conventional surgical removal method which is complicated, cumbersome and is accompanied by pain during or after the surgery and risk of microbial infection, and the conventional treatments using various correction devices or apparatuses which are in many cases not so effective and require very long treatment periods.

    The undersigned petitioner declares that all statements made herein of his own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.

Date:

(宣誓者の署名)
Goro Kimura

タグ:

米国  出願  発明  提出  application  or  be  patent  弊所  宣誓供述書  Japan  an  Japanese  not  with  design  変更  考慮  Final  claim  実際  Action  米国出願  period  Office  発明者  date  at  one  rce  invention  present  after  any  内容  has  treatment  above  epo  report  only  been  www  case  within  書式  such  use  other  may  months  will  以外  we  more  should  method  under  specification  than  made  事項  mentioned  results  all  but  中間処理  having  処理  Act  also  same  inter  information  was  there  用語  go  Art  nail  both  so  Case  ex  effective  about  医療  University  following  ingrown  time  scope  re  parent  fee  month  similar  each  end  without  residing  However  single  供述内容  署名  中間  Applicant  April  before  Further  装置  Exhibit  treatments  form  using  cases  XXXX  long  statements  成功  further  patient  out  XX  shown  inventor  need  state  Tokyo  数値  United  because  Ex  many  Examiner  during  有名  Mr  used  宣誓  PATENT  were  States  very  宣誓者  correction  substantial  follows  given  XXX  some  where  experience  ep  carried  Clinic  side  knowledge  recited  well  had  商業的成功  true  reference  who  like  供述書  cited  details  another  apparatus  device  declare  Fig  therein  these  willful  satisfied  petition  references  various  her  別紙  per  pending  Patient  see  Date  three  am  XYZ  Title  received  website  back  term  corrected  his  herein  result  March  statement  OFFICE  nor  Example  EC  citizen  convention  members  disclosed  dated  thereon  understood  valid  undersigned  二次的考慮事項  固有名詞  web  vice  宣誓供述  instruction  portion  issuing  depending  require  reported  ratio  nails  background  added  act  performed  petitioner  plate  closed  kg  less  pain  specific  DECLARATION  she  false  surely  far  substantially  how  Faculty  believed  feeling  apparent  female  devices  attached  familiar  complicated  conventional  発明者以外  How  20XX  Taro  Thus  UNDER  TRADEMARK  advantage  able  適宜変更  Results  say  late  wire  instructions  short  show  sides  own  previous  please  perform  商業的  minute  now  most  took  surface  hospital  ground  graduated  hereto  gender  二次的  乙号証  Section  Serial  Some  State  Re  painful  operations  operation  YAMADA  man  lifting  advantageous  accompanied  low  minutes  Unit  read  Kimura  punishable  red  periods  performing  patients  practicing  fr  declares  forming  force  hooked  correcting  except  effect  entered  enables  ed  fine  easy  became  invent  jeopardize  belief  believe  almost  approx  imprisonment  clinic  inform  came  characteristics  validity  uses  surgical  surprising  uncomfortable  site  simple  Code  signed  DE  Goro  toward  00XX  Finally  Filed 

宣誓供述書の書き方について(1):米国(Part 1)

今回は、米国出願における37 C.F.R. § 1.132に基づくDeclaration又はAffidavit(以下、纏めて「宣誓供述書」と証す)の書式についてご説明します。(宣誓供述書で証明が可能な事項については、こちらで説明しております。)

1.形式的な要件

 宣誓供述書に記載する事項は、以下の通りです。

① 「IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE」と冒頭に記載する。
② 出願を特定する情報(出願人、出願日、出願番号、審査官の氏名など)。
③ 「DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.132」という表題。
④ 宣誓者(declarant)の情報、具体的には、氏名、住所、最終学歴、職歴(職歴は、宣誓者として相応しいことを示すことができる限り、「~の研究や開発」という程度で構わない)。こちらでも説明しました通り、宣誓者としては、客観性の観点からは発明者以外が好ましいとされていますが、発明者でも支障はありません。
⑤ 宣誓者と本出願との関係。宣誓者が本出願の現状を理解していること。
⑥ 具体的な供述内容。
⑦ 供述内容に虚偽が無いことの宣誓。
⑧ 署名と日付。

2.供述内容

宣誓供述書を提出する状況として最も多いのは、自明性の拒絶を受けて、それに対して予想外の結果(unexpected results)を証明する場合であると思います。その場合の注意事項を以下に挙げます。

当然のことながら、回答の方針を念頭に入れて作成する必要があります。できれば、宣誓供述書を考慮させたただけで、自明性の拒絶理由が撤回されるような内容にすることが望ましいです。

これに関連して、実験報告書の原案を発明者の方が作成し、それを実質的にそのまま翻訳して提出してしまうということが実務上よく行われています。そして発明者の方は、技術の専門家ではありますが特許の専門家ではないために、必ずしも的確とは言えない内容の宣誓供述書になってしまっているというケースを目にすることがあります。その場合、いかに審査官が供述内容を真摯に検討しようとも、拒絶の撤回の根拠とはならないという状況に陥ってしまいます。従って、少なくとも発明と拒絶理由の内容を完全に理解した国内代理人に宣誓供述書の和文ドラフトを作成させて、それを翻訳させることが望ましいと考えます。(弊所では、必ず発明と拒絶の内容を理解した担当者本人が、英語で宣誓供述書を作成します。)

供述内容の決定手順の例を以下に挙げます。

① 現時点(補正後)のクレームの範囲を把握する。

② 先行技術との違いを特定する。

③ 上記の違いによって効果に差が生じるということが明確になるようなデータを取得する(実施例と比較例の結果の相違がこの特徴の違いに起因することが明確になるような条件設定とし、ここで行う比較実験が先行技術の再現実験として認められるような条件を採用しているかなどの点に留意する)。

④ 発明の特徴と効果の因果関係が明確になるようにデータの提示手段を工夫する。

⑤ データの量が不充分とみなされる可能性がある場合、既存のデータに基づいて、その結果がデータ不足分にも適用が可能であることを、合理的に説明する。場合によっては、公知文献に参照する。

⑥ 結論部(Conclusion)において、提示したデータが非自明の根拠として十分であることを簡潔に整理して説明する。

3.具体例

具体的な宣誓供述書の例を下記に示します。(米国出願の中間処理において弊所が実際に提出したものに基づいていますが、固有名詞・用語・数値などは適宜変更してあります。)

[例1]この例は、新たな実験を行うのではなく、明細書の実施例のデータに基づく考察を行って、結論を述べているものです。

供述内容が長くなる場合や、実験証明書を別途添付したい場合には、下記の例のように詳細をExhibit No.(書証番号、日本での甲号証や乙号証に相当)を付した別紙に記載します。

この例では別紙のExhibit 1において実施例のデータに基づく考察を詳しく行い、上記「⑤ 具体的な供述内容」でその内容を要約して述べています。もちろん、新たな実験に基づく宣誓供述書の場合は、別紙のExhibitにおいてその新たな実験の詳細と結果を述べて、上記「⑤ 具体的な供述内容」でその内容を要約して述べます。

宣誓供述書で結論を含む概要を述べ、詳細は別紙のExhibitとすることのメリットとしては、特に供述内容が長かったり複雑である場合に、審査官に先ず宣誓供述書で供述内容の概要を把握させ、その後、別紙のExhibitに記載された詳細により供述内容の合理性を判断させることにより、供述内容を容易且つ確実に理解してもらえるということが挙げられます。

尚、宣誓者(署名する人)の人称ですが、以前は弊所の実務として"he"や"she"などの三人称を使用しておりましたが、米国の代理人より一人称の"I"を使用するようにとのアドバイスを受けて、現在はこれに従っています。

(明細書の実施例のデータに基づく宣誓供述書の書式の1例)

IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Applicants: Ichiro SUZUKI et al.
Serial No.: XX/XXX,XXX
Filed: June 10 20XX
For: POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE RESIN
Art Unit: 4133
Examiner: Thomas More


DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.132

I, the undersigned, Ichiro SUZUKI, a Japanese citizen, residing at xxxxx, Akasaka 1-Chome, Minatoku, Tokyo 107-0052 Japan, hereby declare and state that:
I took a master course at the Department of Applied Chemistry, School of Engineering, ABCDE University, and I was graduated therefrom in March 1990.[*博士号取得者の場合: I was graduated in 1985 from the Department of Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering, ABCDE University, and took a doctor course in the Graduate School of Engineering, ABCDE University, majoring in applied chemistry, from which I was granted the degree of doctor in 1990.]
I entered FGHIJ Polymer Chemical Co., Ltd. in April 1990.
I have been engaged in the research and development of high performance polyester resins from April 1990 to date.
I am one of the applicants of the above-identified application and I am well familiar with the present case. I have read and understood the Office Action dated October 10, 2007 and the references cited therein.
I carried out Examples 1 to 25 and Comparative Examples 1 to 20 of the present application, and the results are as described on pages 160 to 220 of the specification of the present application.
I have made observations, with reference to Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Examples 1, 4 and 9 of the present application, to show that both of the side reaction index (C) requirement (i.e., less than 0.055) of step (1) and the "molten state" requirement of step (2) of the method of claim 4 of the present application must be satisfied for producing the polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention which possesses all excellent properties recited in claim 1 of the present application. (Hereinafter, the former requirement is simply referrred to as "side reaction index (C) requirement", and the latter requirement is simply referred to as "molten state requirement".)  The method and results are as described in a paper attached hereto and marked "Exhibit 1".

From the results of Exhibit 1, it can be fairly concluded:
that, as shown in Table A in Exhibit 1, the process employed in each of Examples 1 and 2 satisfies all requirements of claim 4 of the present application, whereas:

each of Comparative Examples 1 and 4 employs a crude PET resin having a C value of 0.082 and, hence, do not satisfy the side reaction index (C) requirement, and 

Comparative Example 9 employs a solid-phase polymerization process and, hence, does not satisfy the molten state requirement

that the results of Examples 1 and 2 (i.e. the properties of the PET resins obtained) are excellent; specifically, the obtained PET resins possess all of the target properties recited in claim 1 of the present application (Table B in Exhibit 1);

that the results of Comparative Examples 1 and 4 are poor in that the PET resins obtained in Comparative Examples 1 and 4, respectively, exhibit cyclic polymer contents (% by weight) of 3.45 and 3.34, which exceed the upper limit (not greater than 3 % by weight) recited in claim 1 of the present application (Table B in Exhibit 1);

that the results of Comparative Example 9 are poor in that the obtained PET resin not only exhibits a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of 3, which exceeds the upper limit (from 2 to 2.7) recited in claim 1 of the present application, but also exhibits disadvantageously high crystallinity of 55 (which causes high brittleness)  (Table B in Exhibit 1);

that, thus, through a comparison between Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Examples 1 and 4, it is clear that the polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention cannot be obtained when the crude PET resin used does not satisfy the side reaction index (C) requirement; in other words, the side reaction index (C) requirement is critical for producing the polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention which possesses all excellent properties recited in claim 1 of the present application;

that, further, through a comparison between Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Example 9, it is clear that the polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention cannot be obtained by a solid-phase polymerization process that is a representative conventional process; in other words, the molten state requirement is also critical for producing the excellent polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention;

that Comparative Example 9 also shows that, even in the case where the requirements of step (1) of the method of claim 4 (including the side reaction index (C) requirement) are satisfied, the excellent PET resin of the present invention cannot be obtained when the molten state requirement is not satisfied;

that thus, it is apparent that the polyethylene terephthalate resin of the present invention which possesses all excellent properties recited in claim 1 of the present application can be obtained only when the process employed satisfies both of the side reaction index (C) requirement and the molten state requirement.

The undersigned petitioner declares that all statements made herein of his own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.

Date:

(宣誓者の署名) Ichiro SUZUKI

タグ:

特許  米国  出願  クレーム  発明  日本  補正  記載  提出  必要  明細書  上記  以下  application  翻訳  審査  効果  拒絶  or  be  patent  先行技術  判断  可能  弊所  英語  宣誓供述書  出願人  比較  審査官  適用  データ  作成  Japan  実施例  an  範囲  説明  可能性  要件  メリット  Japanese  検討  not  with  変更  情報  考慮  理由  具体的  特徴  claim  明確  実際  拒絶理由  使用  Action  米国出願  Office  特定  発明者  公知  action  EP  文献  date  at  技術  容易  one  art  採用  出願日  invention  注意  実験  present  実施  十分  after  any  以前  内容  理解  has  grant  search  結果  観点  概要  現在  状況  above  詳細  根拠  形式  関連  実質的  only  been  www  case  決定  参照  代理人  書式  such  use  other  自明性  pace  may  条件  取得  証明  phase  will  以外  ケース  自明  手段  we  method  under  当然  specification  合理的  than  between  made  事項  results  提示  充分  all  but  right  相違  相当  中間処理  having  処理  Act  must  国内  also  through  information  process  resin  was  there  用語  専門家  Art  requirement  程度  applicant  回答  実務  step  具体例  比較例  both  so  excellent  ex  high  University  Engineering  時点  下記  even  re  parent  granted  each  residing  確実  今回  Declaration  供述内容  署名  中間  Applicant  April  完全  予想外  担当  identified  obtained  Exhibit  Examples  form  Applicants  関係  現時点  注意事項  statements  公知文献  further  撤回  SUZUKI  out  XX  shown  including  state  producing  Tokyo  数値  properties  United  reaction  Ex  Examiner  有名  日付  Comparative  Ichiro  used  宣誓  do  PATENT  referred  does  were  States  宣誓者  Affidavit  simply  index  念頭  添付  手順  requirements  respect  XXX  補正後  where  inoue  実験証明書  ep  複雑  実務上  考察  予想  School  clear  carried  obtain  side  Chemical  knowledge  Department  recited  well  本人  本出願  比較実験  true  reference  like  PET  結論  起因  番号  applied  供述書  cited  和文  terephthalate  limit  polyethylene  Graduate  declare  簡潔  molten  course  therein  these  willful  開発  satisfied  petition  references  her  別紙  per  applicants  Date  Table  現状  am  客観性  sea  its  把握  Title  poor  バイ  resins  支障  ku  非自明  his  herein  出願番号  result  March  工夫  statement  OFFICE  最終  Example  形式的  アドバイス  EC  citizen  convention  住所  described  代理  dated  thus  thereon  understood  valid  undersigned  冒頭  再現  固有名詞  weight  xxx  words  宣誓供述  issuing  degree  的確  require  ratio  既存  act  chemistry  petitioner  part  less  specific  hence  DECLARATION  留意  she  false  exhibits  hereby  how  satisfy  Faculty  believed  apparent  職歴  attached  familiar  development  現実  conventional  不充分  doctor  発明者以外  ABCDE  20XX  UNDER  要約  TRADEMARK  advantage  虚偽  ドラフト  able  October  適宜変更  late  representative  担当者  unexpected  show  氏名  up  isa  報告  own  possesses  方針  polymer  perform  実験証明  実験報告書  xxxx  now  took  graduated  therefrom  hereto  solid  研究  真摯  不足  乙号証  原案  先行  再現実験  別途  明細  設定  Section  Serial  State  major  man  advantageous  master  Unit  read  punishable  Hereinafter  red  polymerization  Polymer  More  Minatoku  Minato  fr  declares  former  content  contents  critical  crude  great  greater  employed  exhibit  employs  entered  ed  fine  invent  jeopardize  belief  believe  imprisonment  comparison  inform  causes  validity  satisfies  uses  Akasaka  upper  respectively  try  FGHIJ  xx  xxxxx  Chemistry  Code  Chome  Applied  shows  signed  DE  whereas  Filed 

National Patent Application in Japan

Q. Is it possible to file a patent application in Japan with an English specification?

A.  A valid filing date in Japan can be obtained by filing English versions of a specification (including claims and description), an abstract and drawings (if any) together with a duly filled-out application form (in Japanese language).  However, Japanese translations of the English specification etc. must be filed within 1 year and 2 months from the filing date or, if the Japanese application claims the convention priority, from the priority date.  Failure to do so results in the application being deemed to be abandoned.

Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention

Q1. We understand that Japan has a grace period for avoiding certain public disclosures from constituting prior art against a Japanese application.  How long is this grace period?

A1.  The grace period defined under Article 30 of the Japanese patent law (Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention) is 6 months from the date of public disclosure.

Q2. What type of disclosures is capable of taking advantage of the Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention in Japan?

A2.  According to current Article 30 of the Japanese patent law (effective as of April 1, 2012), virtually any disclosure, including “inventions made public at meetings and seminars, which are not academic conference designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, inventions made public on TV and radio, and inventions made public through sales”, are covered by the Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention.  However, a patent publication is not a non-prejudicial disclosure.

Q3. Is the grace period applicable to scientific articles published on the web? 

A3.  The 6-month grace period is also applicable to electronic publications of scientific articles.  When a scientific article is published in the form of an electronic publication in advance to the publication in print, the 6-month grace period will start from the date of the electronic publication.  This rule applies not only to a free electronic publication, but also to an electronic publication which requires registered membership and/or purchase of the publication for accessing the electronic publication.

Q4. An invention has been published as a scientific article and a basic patent application has been filed in the US within 6 months from the publication of the scientific article.  Already 10 months have passed from the publication of the scientific article, but is it still possible to enjoy the benefit of the Japanese 6-month grace period by filing a Japanese patent application claiming the Paris convention priority from the basic US application filed within 6 months from the publication date? 

A4.  No.  Claiming of the Paris convention priority does not allow the filing date in Japan to date back for the purpose of grace period.  In other words, when a basic application is filed in other country within 6 months from the date of public disclosure, and a Japanese patent application claiming the convention priority from the basic application is filed after the expiration of the 6-months grace period, the Japanese patent application cannot enjoy the benefit of the grace period.

For receiving the benefit of the 6-month grace period in Japan, the Applicant must file within the 6-month grace period either one of the following applications:

   (1) Japanese national patent application*, or

   (2) PCT application designating Japan as one of the designated states. 

* Either a Japanese patent application or a PCT application claiming the convention priority from this Japanese patent application can be filed after the expiration of the grace period and still enjoy the benefit of the grace period.

Q5. What are the steps necessary for obtaining the benefit of the Japanese 6-month grace period?  

A5.  Necessary steps are explained separately for Japanese national patent application and PCT application.

Japanese national patent application:

A patent application is filed simultaneously with a Request for Grace Period within 6 months from the date of public disclosure.  Alternatively, the Request may be omitted by stating such effect in the patent application.

Next, a Document Verifying the Request, which is signed by all applicants, is filed within 30 days from the filing date of the patent application.  Filing of a specific evidence material (such as a copy of the scientific article disclosing the invention) is not required, but it is most advisable to file the evidence material with the Document.

PCT application designating Japan:

When a PCT application designating Japan as one of the designated states is filed within the 6 month grace period, such a PCT application will obtain the benefit of the grace period even when the PCT application enters the Japanese national phase after the expiration of the grace period (i.e., within non-extensible 30 month deadline).  In this case, both the Request for Grace Period and the Document Verifying the Request are filed within 30 days from the entry into the Japanese national phase. 

[Filing of the Request for Grace Period can be omitted when “Declaration as to Non-Prejudicial Disclosures or Exceptions to Lack of Novelty” (PCT Rule 4.17(v), 26ter.1) is made at the international stage.]

The Document Verifying the Request can be prepared at our end and forwarded for execution by the applicant(s). 

タグ:

PCT  application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  claim  period  Office  date  at  Request  one  art  invention  after  any  has  prior  applications  grace  file  only  been  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  phase  will  priority  we  under  made  all  but  Article  non  law  must  We  necessary  also  inter  through  registered  A2  Art  A1  applicant  Rule  step  against  type  Novelty  both  so  ex  effective  possible  following  What  required  even  steps  re  month  publication  disclosure  end  However  Declaration  Q2  Q1  cannot  Applicant  national  April  form  prepared  long  Disclosure  claiming  including  Invention  international  rule  simultaneously  state  public  Ex  covered  either  do  Grace  Q3  does  A3  days  stage  ep  articles  obtain  benefit  Period  Claim  material  Q4  expiration  designated  article  electronic  scientific  A4  Filing  deadline  country  basic  her  per  Document  applicants  inventions  back  entry  evidence  his  Lack  convention  designating  members  cover  Exceptions  understand  web  words  Non  Next  require  defined  ratio  allow  omitted  specific  she  states  start  explained  extensible  execution  applies  day  enjoy  certain  capable  How  According  advantage  able  Verifying  requires  separate  up  isa  over  published  most  purpose  forwarded  taking  Re  Q5  academic  low  mm  meetings  read  publications  red  passed  Paris  free  fr  current  copy  effect  ed  disclosures  fine  ip  invent  applicable  try  A5  An  Claiming  separately  signed  still 

Design Registration

Q1. If a design application is to be filed in Japan claiming Convention Priority based on a non-Japanese application, is the priority period one year as in patent applications? 

A1.  No. For filing design applications in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is for six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application.  Even if you have a design "patent" application filed at the USPTO, the priority period is 6 months for filing a Japanese patent application with a valid priority claim based on the degisn "patent" application filed in the US.  

You also have to be careful when filing a patent application in Japan claiming priority from both a patent application and a design application.  That is, for example, if you filed in your country a patent application on May 1, 2012 and a design application on October 30, 2012 and are now considering filing a patent application on May 1, 2013 in Japan claiming priority from both of the above-mentioned patent application and design application filed in your country, this date “May 1, 2013” is within one-year priority period based on the patent application but is after the expiration of six-month priority period (October 30, 2012 + 6 months = April 40, 2013) based on the design application.  Therefore, the priority claim based on the design application is not valid.  

Q2. I am planning to file a design patent application in Japan claiming priority from a US design patent application.  What are the major differences in practice between the United States and Japan that require particular attention?

A2.  Firstly, unlike the “design patent” in the United States which is one type of patents and is basically dealt with under the patent law, Japan has a design law separate from a patent law. 

Therefore, in Japan, an application for registration of a design is referred to as “design application”, not “design patent application” as in the United States.  

More importantly, this difference in legal system leads to some significant differences in design registration practice between the US and Japan representative examples of which are enumerated below.

Difference 1)  “Single design per application” system in Japan

It is understood that the US system allows an applicant to pursue two or more designs (embodiments) of a single inventive concept in a single design patent application.  This, however, is not the case in Japan.  According to the Japanese practice, each design application may include only a single design of single shape.

Therefore, in Japan, when a single priority application includes multiple designs, it is necessary to either:

-  file separate design applications with respect to the different designs, or

-  file an application including different designs and later file a divisional application(s).

In this connection, however, it should be noted that it is not allowed to file a divisional application on a “partial” design from a “whole” design application and vice versa.  Concerning the “partial” and “whole” designs, explanations are made below.

Further, there is an exception to the "single design per application" system, and the Japan's Design Law provides "related design" system for covering a plurality of similar designs.

1-1) Exception to the “single design per application” rule

The Japan’s Design Law exceptionally allows for discrete objects to be claimed in a single application if common sense indicates that such discrete objects are usually sold as a “set”, as in the case of, for example, a 3-piece set including a knife, fork and spoon. 

1-2) Related design applications

In the case where the priority US application contains a plurality of different but similar designs (e.g., minor variations of a certain design), such similar designs may be covered by utilizing the related design system in Japan.  Specifically, the similar designs can be covered by filing a principal design application and filing a related design application(s) by one day prior to the publication of the principal design. 

The design registered as the related design can be enforced independently of the registered principal design and other registered related design(s).  That is, a related design right can cover even a design similar to that related design, which, however, is not similar to the principal design. 

For covering such similar designs under the related design regime, it is possible to either:

-  file a principal design application and also file a related design application(s) simultaneously with the principal application or later (by one day prior to the publication of the principal design at the latest), or

-  file general design applications on the similar designs, and later amend the general applications into a principal design application and a related design application(s).

The JPO may find that the designs are not similar enough to be eligible for registration under the related design regime but there is no need to be so nervous about this point.  If the JPO denies the similarity, the JPO will issue an office action requesting the applicant to stop relying on the related design system and change the applications to normal applications.

 

Finally, the right of a registered related design is independent from the right of a registered principal design but there are the following exceptions.

1.   Synchronized protection term: 

The protection term for both of a registered principal design and a registered related design is 20 years from the registration date of the principal design.  This point, however, is substantially immaterial in the present case because the two applications will probably be registered almost simultaneously.  Further, the registered related design can be maintained even if the principal design is allowed to lapse due to non-payment of maintenance fee, and vice versa.   

 2.   Restriction of transfer of rights and licensing: 

The right of a registered related design cannot be transferred or licensed independently from the registered principal design.  That is, for transfer of design rights to a third party by assignment etc., the principal and related designs must be simultaneously transferred together to the same entity.  Further, also for licensing, the principal and related designs must be licensed simultaneously to the same entity.

 

Difference 2)  Partial Design System

The Japan’s Design Law has a “partial design system” which allows registration of parts of shapes or forms with distinct characteristics.  

The US system also provides a similar practice where dotted lines can be used to indicate non-claimed parts.  There is, however, one important difference.  That is, the Japan’s system requires that a partial design application should be filed with a clear indication that the application claims a partial design.  In the absence of such indication, the application will be recognized as claiming a whole design. 

Once filed with the indication of a partial design application, it is in principle not allowed to amend the application into a whole design application and vice versa.  Similarly, a divisional application on a partial design cannot be filed from a whole design application and vice versa. 

Therefore, if it is important to cover both of whole and partial designs, it is recommended to file both a whole design application and a partial design application.

 

Of course, there are many other differences between US and Japanese practices; however, the above differences are believed to be the main differences which require particular attention when filing a design application in Japan claiminig priority from a US design patent application.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  JPO  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  Final  claim  period  action  date  at  one  art  rce  present  after  claims  any  has  prior  applications  office  request  above  file  entity  only  case  within  such  use  other  into  divisional  issue  pace  may  months  will  system  priority  we  more  should  under  between  made  mentioned  related  all  but  right  non  law  must  necessary  also  same  third  there  registered  based  A2  A1  patents  applicant  Prior  type  both  so  designs  ex  about  possible  rights  practice  following  What  registration  principal  even  re  fee  month  publication  similar  years  each  end  Q2  Q1  single  legal  party  Design  cannot  April  Further  form  principle  etc  Therefore  claiming  claimed  general  out  including  rule  simultaneously  two  need  Law  whole  United  public  example  because  Ex  many  covered  either  provide  used  allowed  differences  Part  do  year  referred  test  States  partial  substantial  plurality  usually  respect  some  where  ep  protection  clear  later  side  set  independent  main  include  material  who  like  expiration  distinct  difference  Restriction  different  considering  course  country  basic  below  important  her  per  however  am  parts  inventive  term  his  nor  noted  payment  cover  together  understood  valid  vice  versa  indicates  require  ratio  attention  allow  act  place  There  part  particular  lines  care  six  Convention  substantially  due  how  First  believed  connection  day  ended  certain  change  exam  May  According  Concerning  allows  Specifically  October  amend  late  variations  representative  maintenance  requires  instead  shape  separate  over  minor  now  most  indication  objects  note  State  Re  Priority  maintained  major  absence  man  licensed  licensing  low  mm  Unit  provides  regime  recognized  red  planning  point  practices  More  fr  force  covering  eligible  except  examples  ed  discrete  find  ip  invent  assignment  believe  almost  independently  indicate  characteristics  utilizing  try  Even  sold  Difference  transferred  transfer  requesting  Finally  Firstly  relying 

Trademarks

Q1. If a trademark application is to be filed in Japan claiming Convention Priority based on a non-Japanese application, is the priority period one year as in patent applications? 

A1.  No. For filing a trademark application in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application. 

Q2. Are there any specific points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan?

A2.  Some of the points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan are as follows.

(1)  Goods and services acceptable in Japan:  In the case of trademark registration in Japan via Madrid protocol, the JPO may object to the indications of goods/services in the International Register as being too vague even if they should be acceptable under the NICE Agreement.  This is because the JPO relies on its own list of goods and services as prescribed in the examination standards.  For example, “Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water” found in the NICE Classifications is not found acceptable by the JPO, and it should be amended to “Aircraft; automobiles; bicycles; motorcycles; rolling stock for railways; ships”.  The amendment of indications is possible as long as it is within the scope of the original Madrid protocol application. 

(2)  Requirement for use of trademark:  A registrable trademark in Japan is a trademark which is being used or which is intended to be used in the near future.  When the range of the goods and services listed in one class is too broad, the trademark will be rejected because the veracity of use or intention of use of the trademark becomes doubtful.

(3)  Registrable subject matter:  Currently, sounds, smells, colors, textures, tastes and movements are not registerable as trademarks in Japan.  (However, the JPO is planning to submit a bill to revise the trademark law to the Japanese Diet in 2013.  So, registration of the mentioned subjects as trademarks may become possible in the near future.)

Q3. Are there any means to accelerate examination of a trademark application in Japan?

A3. Yes.  A request for accelerated examination can be filed anytime after the filing of your trademark application, and the request should be granted as long as the following condition 1 or 2 is met .

Condition 1 : Actual use of trademark and need for quick registration 

You or your licensee is already using your trademark for the goods or services designated in your application, or are preparing to use the trademark, AND

The trademark rights need to be granted urgently due to any one or more of the following reasons:

   1) A third party is using a trademark which is the same or similar to your trademark without authorization from you or your licensee, in connection with designated goods or services that are the same or similar to the goods and services for which you or your licensee has been using the trademark, or for which you or your licensee has prepared to a considerable degree to use the trademark.

   2) A third party has given a warning with respect to the use of your trademark.

   3) A third party is demanding an agreement to their use of your trademark.

   4) You have also applied for the trademark registration at a Patent Office other than the Japan Patent Office (JPO), or to an intergovernmental organization.

Condition 2:  Use of trademark only for designated goods or services

Your application designates only the goods and services for which you or your licensee is already using the trademark or you or your licensee is preparing to use the trademark.

Q4. What are the documents necessary for filing a request for accelerated examination for a trademark application in Japan? 

A4.  A document entitled "Explanation of the Circumstances Concerning Accelerated Examination” should be filed together with evidence(s) showing that the above-mentioned Condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled by the trademark application. 

Q5. What are the specifics of the individual fee system for a trademark registration via Madrid Protocol designating Japan. 

A5.  The JPO has adopted an individual fee consisting of two parts in accordance with Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol.

First part of the individual fee:  This corresponds to an application fee, and is paid at the time of international registration or the subsequent designation. 

Second part of the individual fee:  This corresponds to a registration fee, and is paid within the prescribed period mentioned in the notification issued with the Notice of Grant.  Failure of payment results in cancellation of the designation of Japan in the international registration.

Both fees are to be paid directly to the International Bureau of the WIPO.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  JPO  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  claim  period  Office  Examination  at  one  art  after  any  Notice  has  grant  prior  applications  request  above  examination  file  only  been  case  within  Inter  trademark  use  other  issue  IP  may  months  will  system  priority  we  more  documents  should  under  than  mentioned  results  right  non  law  Act  services  necessary  also  same  amendment  inter  third  there  based  A2  go  A1  consisting  Prior  Rule  agreement  so  ex  Cir  possible  rights  following  What  Grant  time  registration  scope  even  re  fee  granted  month  similar  end  without  However  Q2  Q1  party  national  accelerated  prepared  using  issued  International  long  claiming  out  international  two  need  subject  state  example  because  Ex  Accelerated  Yes  used  WIPO  their  do  year  Q3  A3  water  respect  follows  given  goods  ep  original  matter  side  reason  reasons  Q4  designated  applied  document  directly  Reg  condition  being  A4  licensee  warning  becomes  they  rejected  her  found  per  see  good  am  parts  its  acceptable  evidence  his  rolling  result  gov  noted  notification  payment  paid  designating  together  via  vice  preparing  degree  individual  Madrid  ratio  amended  accordance  become  Second  place  listed  part  six  specific  entitled  Convention  showing  fees  due  how  First  service  connection  ended  exam  How  Condition  Concerning  already  able  amend  instead  show  means  own  over  reject  near  trademarks  submit  indication  oa  note  Some  Re  Priority  Protocol  Q5  Regulations  man  list  low  mm  Use  range  quick  read  protocol  registering  red  planning  point  points  NICE  prescribed  fr  fulfilled  future  considerable  corresponds  ed  designation  doubt  ip  automobiles  automobile  broad  indications  Agreement  Failure  A5  Classification  way 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作