end

ホーム

外国特許出願明細書や外国代理人へ指示書類の質が高ければ、特許の質の向上のみならず、無駄な拒絶の回避や外国代理人費用の低減によりコスト削減も可能になります。

弊所のスタッフは、外国特許実務に精通し且つ英語力及び論理構成力に優れ、明細書の作成から拒絶に対する応答や係争関連の書類の作成まで全て自ら行います。

欧米の代理人も、弊所の実力を認めた上で弊所が作成した書類を実質的な変更をせずに提出します(英語の場合)。

このような業務形態は、審査が厳しく現地費用も高い米国や欧州において特に大きなメリットをもたらします。

出願のみならず係争事件においても非常に成功率が高く、お客様にご信頼をいただいております。

  • 35年以上の経験と実績(国際特許出願-PCT出願-を含む外国特許出願などに関連した実務に精通)
  • 諸外国出願(国際特許出願を含む外国特許出願など)に関してカバーする国は170ヶ国以上
  • 少数精鋭にて事務所全体としての能力を高いレベルに維持
  • スタッフ各々が海外特許実務のみならず特許英語のプロフェッショナル
  • 高度な英文書類(外国特許出願明細書の翻訳文や英文の意見書など)の作成による審査手続の効率化や外国代理人費用などの削減
  • 緊急の依頼対応可能

外国知財(特許、実用新案、商標、意匠など)のエキスパート 井上&アソシエイツの特徴

ご相談・お問合わせ

弊所は、35年以上知財関連実務及び翻訳に携わって参りました。
経験に裏付けられた高度な専門知識、 英語能力、論理構成力を駆使して主に国際特許・商標出願、外国特許・ 商標出願など知的財産関連書類の作成・翻訳を行います。
お見積など、何でもお気軽にご相談ください。

〒106-0032
東京都港区六本木5丁目13番6号
麻布CMSホームズ 302
(南北線 麻布十番 徒歩5分、日比谷線 六本木 徒歩13分)
⇒事務所案内ページへ

国際・外国知財(特許、実案、商標、意匠)が得意な事務所をお探しなら 井上&アソシエイツ電話番号:お問い合わせ

タグ:

特許  米国  PCT  出願  欧州  提出  明細書  費用  翻訳  審査  拒絶  商標  可能  弊所  英語  手続  意匠  特許出願  作成  実用新案  an  対応  メリット  外国  外国出願  変更  応答  特徴  翻訳文  意見書  art  非常  事件  レベル  出願明細書  30  コスト  関連  実質的  向上  www  書類  代理人  井上  以上  英文  知的財産  客様  事務所  海外  アソシエイツ  維持  知財  構成  but  回避  実務  経験  依頼  知識  外国特許出願  削減  re  現地  意見  能力  高度  ページ  スタッフ  成功  国際特許出願  指示  代理人費用  欧米  商標出願  特許出願明細書  効率化  プロ  inoue  相談  カバー  外国特許  国際特許  main  13  文書  係争  低減  全体  諸外国  実績  外国代理人  am  見積  実力  係争事件  業務  無駄  年以上  気軽  訳文  外国代理人費用  論理  代理  少数精鋭  信頼  外国特許実務  審査手続  vice  効率  論理構成力  act  精通  35  service  事務  目標  駆使  英語能力  専門知識  少数  成功率  外国特許出願明細書  国際  特許実務  徒歩  形態  CMS  302  02  知財関連  現地費用  特許英語  明細  裏付  国以上  東京都港区  東京都港区六本木  東京都  英語力  ホームズ  content 

sitemap.xml

タグ:

or  an  not  at  all  so  ex  re  parent  end  form  htm  index  where  ep  like  her  html  item  language  ml  english  site 

欧州(3): 調査報告(サーチレポート)に対する応答と自発補正

欧州サーチレポートに対する応答に対する応答義務

2010年4月1日に施行された欧州特許条約(EPC)の施行規則改定により、欧州サーチレポートに対する応答(正式にはサーチレポートに添付されている調査見解書に対する応答)が義務化されました。 但し、応答の義務があるのは、欧州サーチレポートが否定的な内容である場合(特許性の瑕疵の指摘や補正の必要性の指摘などを含んでいる場合)にのみ応答が必要となります。期限内に応答しない場合には、出願取り下げとなってしまいます。肯定的な内容である場合は、応答の必要はありません。

応答の対象となるレポートや応答の期限は、出願の方式により異なります。日本国内の出願人による欧州出願の場合、応答の対象となるレポートや応答の期限は以下のようになります。

国際調査機関/ 国際予備審査機関 応答すべきサーチレポート*1 応答期限

Case 1:

非PCT経由の欧州出願

--- EESR (ESR+調査見解書 EESRの公開から6ヶ月以内*2

Case 2:

日本語でPCT出願

→ 欧州移行

JPO EESR (SESR+調査見解書)  EESR公開の約1ヶ月後に発行される応答要求の通知(規則70(2)、70a(2))から6ヶ月以内

Case 3:

英語でPCT出願

→ 欧州移行

(国際調査機関及び国際予備審査機関として、JPO又はEPOのいずれかを選択できる

JPOの場合(Case 3-1)

 

EESR (SESR+調査見解書)  EESR公開の約1ヶ月後に発行される応答要求の通知(規則70(2)、70a(2))から6ヶ月以内
EPOの場合(Case 3-2) ISR/IPER ISRの公開又は欧州移行の遅い方から約2ヶ月後にEPOより発行される応答要求の通知(規則161(1))から6ヶ月以内

*注:
1) ESR: European Search Report, 欧州調査報告
   SESR: Supplementary European Search Report, 補充欧州調査報告
   EESR: Extended European Search Report, 拡張欧州調査報告 (ESR又はSESR+調査見解書)
   ISR: International Search Report, 国際調査報告
   IPER: International Preliminary Examination Report, 国際予備審査報告

2) 実際には、EESRの発行前に審査請求がされていた場合には、EESR発行後に出される審査請求の確認要求通知に対する回答期限ということになるが、この回答期限は実務上はESSR発行後6ヶ月であるため、結局は、審査請求の有無によらずEERS発行後6ヶ月の期限ということになる。

自発補正

2010年4月1日の規則改正により自発補正が可能な時期が制限されましたが、自発補正の期限は上記のサーチレポートに対する応答期限と同様になります。

上記Case 2とCase 3-1(JPOが国際調査機関及び国際予備審査機関であるPCT出願)の場合には、SESR(補充欧州調査報告)よりも前に発行される規則161(2)の通知から1ヶ月以内にも自発補正を行うことが出来ます。

タグ:

特許  PCT  出願  日本  欧州  補正  必要  EPO  上記  以下  審査  or  サーチレポート  可能  英語  EPC  出願人  移行  欧州特許  要求  対象  an  JPO  期限  EESR  請求  出来  制限  選択  同様  公開  応答  日本語  実際  時期  国際調査機関  月以内  自発補正  EP  Examination  規則  at  見解書  特許性  調査  補充  改正  内容  ISR  拡張  EP  国際調査報告  審査請求  通知  欧州出願  epo  否定  発行  Inter  応答期限  施行  サーチ  IP  国際調査  European  経由  EPO  指摘  確認  見解  国際予備審査機関  国内  Report  JPO  回答  必要性  ESR  実務  施行規則  条約  結局  Case  ex  国際予備審査報告  欧州特許条約  義務  re  国際予備審査  end  SESR  national  応答義務  International  70a  Ex  Search  有無  日本国内  添付  ep  実務上  回答期限  否定的  IPE  正式  調査機関  発行後  肯定的  調査見解書  Supplementary  補充欧州調査報告  IPER  am  規則改正  施行規則改定  レポート  Preliminary  以内  欧州調査報告  欧州移行  改定  自発  応答要求  ESSR  発行前  ended  Extended  161  16  able  調査報告  拡張欧州調査報告  up  報告  期限内  国際  JP  予備審査  予備審査報告  機関  公開又  瑕疵  国際調査機関及  日本国  肯定  Re  ed 

English

Welcome to the website of Inoue & Associates

Introductory Statement

Inoue & Associates (located within 1 minute walk from the Japan Patent Office) is an intellectual property (IP) firm having more than 35 years of experience in international IP business.

We are a modest-sized IP firm composed of members each having profound knowledge about the legal aspect of IP and the technologies involved therein as well as excellent skill in actual IP practice, such that high quality services can be offered constantly at a reasonable price.  Each one of our staff members is so trained as to be able to always provide high quality IP-related services including production of documents having a clear and logical construction whether they are in English or Japanese and irrespective of urgency or technical difficulties involved in particular cases.

Over the years, we have built up a solid reputation for our ability to efficiently acquire and protect IP rights in Japan.

We are confident that we can provide higher quality IP services than any other IP firms in Japan.


Features of Inoue & Associates

For acquiring and protecting patent rights, everything starts from the claims and specification of a patent application or a granted patent.  Whether a patent application can be granted with a desired protective scope or a granted patent can survive the challenge from a third party depends utterly on how good the claims and specification have been drafted in the first place.

Invalidation of patents, unexpectedly narrow scope of protection, defeat in infringement suit … all such undesired outcome could have been avoided only if the patent application had been better drafted. 

In the case of Japanese patent applications filed by non-Japanese entities, the claims and specification are usually translations from the non-Japanese texts of the first filed foreign applications or PCT applications. 

From this perspective, the translation of the patent claims and specification is actually more than just a translation and is practically tantamount to the preparation of a legal document which serves as a basis for seeking patent protection.  For this reason, the translation should be done with utmost care by IP professionals such as experienced patent attorneys or paralegals

And that is what we do and is not done by most of the IP firms in Japan

 

Problems related to traditional way of handling patent applications from outside Japan

In typical Japanese IP firms, applications from foreign clients are handled by a team of an IP professional (a patent attorney or a paralegal) and a translator. For example, the translation of a PCT specification for the Japan national phase entry is often carried out by one who is the least experienced in the IP firm or even by an outside translator.

The IP professions work on legal matters based on the translations prepared by translators which are not always so good or of a rather poor quality in many cases. This manner of handling patents is disadvantageous not only from the aspect of efficiency but also from the aspect of cost because poor translations of course make the entire procedure unnecessarily complicated and high translation fees are required even if the translations are not so good. Such inefficient and problematic practice as mentioned above has become customary because many Japanese IP professionals are not good at writing in English or even reading English documents, and the English-to-Japanese translations are generally assigned to beginners.

Consequently, many Japanese IP professionals have to rely on poor translations in their works, thus falling into a vicious cycle. It is not surprising even if patent applications from foreign clients are handled by those who do not fully understand what is disclosed in the original specification nor the clients’ instructions given in English during the prosecution of the application. For years, this has been a serious problem as far as the patent applications from outside Japan are concerned.

Our Solution

Such problems as mentioned above will never happen in the case of Inoue & Associates. Every one of our staff members has gone through very hard training and long actual experience to acquire ability to handle the IP cases alone from drafting patent specifications whether they are in Japanese or English to dealing with various procedures relating to patent applications or registered patents. We do not need and actually do not use any translator. Even in the case of foreign patent applications (in US, EP etc.) filed by Japanese applicants through our firm, the US or European patent attorneys often use our draft documents without any substantial change. That is, the documents drafted by Inoue & Associates as such are often submitted to the USPTO or the EPO.

There is no magic formula for acquiring good IP rights. This can be achieved only by hard work and skill obtainable through long and rich experience as always required in any fields for realizing high quality services.

Inoue & Associates is one of the very limited number of Japanese IP firms capable of constantly offering high quality IP services at a reasonable price. There has been and will be no compromise in the quality of services we provide to our clients and, for this very reason, we have been trusted by many foreign clients as well as domestic clients.

Our skill in IP business is highly esteemed by our clients including two famous Japanese professors emeriti, Dr. Nobuatsu Watanabe and Dr. Hidefumi Hirai, whose recommendations are shown in this web site. Further, if requested, we will be able to show you copies of some letters from various US and EP attorneys praising our abilities.

Our highly-skilled staff members will surely be of great help to your establishment of strong and valuable intellectual property portfolio while reducing cost.

If you are not sure, try us and we promise that we will never fall short of your expectations. You will immediately realize that we are dedicated to efficient acquisition and protection of your valuable intellectual properties and have skills to achieve this goal.

タグ:

PCT  EPO  application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  Patent  Japanese  not  with  filed  claim  Office  EP  at  one  art  claims  any  has  grant  applications  request  above  file  only  been  case  within  such  use  other  into  IP  Statement  phase  will  European  we  more  documents  should  under  specification  than  mentioned  related  all  but  right  problem  having  non  services  We  also  inter  through  third  there  registered  based  go  patents  translations  applicant  so  excellent  ex  about  high  rights  practice  foreign  technical  required  scope  reasonable  even  re  fee  granted  years  each  end  without  Inoue  legal  party  business  English  national  Further  form  prepared  cases  etc  long  general  out  shown  including  international  skill  two  first  need  quality  properties  example  because  many  skilled  during  prosecution  provide  amount  their  least  do  year  Associates  very  clients  substantial  usually  respect  firm  given  translation  some  experience  ep  Intellectual  those  protection  clear  carried  obtain  original  Problem  make  matter  Property  side  efficiency  reason  knowledge  well  had  infringement  who  document  Solution  staff  construction  cost  limit  course  therein  Such  country  basis  production  they  outside  various  her  specifications  found  firms  per  applicants  see  good  am  poor  work  always  website  whether  product  attorneys  property  entry  intellectual  drafted  his  herein  expectation  limited  often  nor  members  disclosed  could  submitted  thus  understand  valid  web  vice  what  instruction  require  reading  ratio  ability  become  number  actually  act  place  closed  located  There  part  particular  care  specific  surely  far  fees  field  start  every  draft  how  highly  service  aspect  fields  desired  complicated  entire  concerned  change  capable  exam  done  Invalidation  Consequently  Trademark  Trade  advantage  able  acquire  actual  Services  valuable  late  requested  unexpected  instructions  short  show  serious  up  involved  isa  own  professionals  professional  problems  procedure  practically  minute  protecting  now  most  skills  immediately  texts  fully  handling  handled  submit  help  translator  solid  never  oa  State  abilities  man  advantageous  acquiring  logical  mm  Watanabe  manner  rather  read  Hirai  Hidefumi  red  professor  procedures  protective  price  Nobuatsu  fr  full  depends  generally  constantly  higher  hard  great  experienced  efficiently  establish  entities  everything  esteemed  ed  domestic  ip  avoided  attorney  Dr  Each  suit  try  trusted  Even  Every  rich  surprising  An  site  works  signed  way  while  utmost  trained  reputation 

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 

Practice Areas

▼Our practice areas include:

(1) filing and prosecuting domestic applications for patents, utility models, designs, trademarks and service marks,

(2) filing and prosecuting international patent applications,

(3) demands for trials, such as trial against a decision of rejection, trial for invalidation, and trial for correction,

(4) appeals before the Tokyo High Court against the trial decisions rendered by the Japan Patent Office,

(5) handling of foreign applications on behalf of Japanese and foreign applicants,

(6) maintenance, assignments and management of intellectual property portfolios, and

(7) translations of documents necessary for patent applications and translations of any other documents.


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作