noted

米国:AFCP試行プログラム実施期間延長

米国特許商標庁(USPTO)は、特許(Utility Patent)・意匠(Design Patent)出願に対する最後の拒絶理由通知(Final Office Action)後に、審査の再考を促す機会を与えるAfter Final Consideration Pilot(AFCP)プログラムを、2012年3月25日から6月16日までに提出された応答を対象として実施しておりましたが、この試行期間が2012年9月30日まで延長されることとなりました。

現行の規則では最後の拒絶理由通知(Final Office Action)後に提出された補正や証拠を審査官に考慮させるためには、RCE等の手続きが必要になることが多いのですが、AFCP によって、Final後に提出された補正や証拠について、限定的な(特許で約3時間、意匠で約1時間以内で済むような)検討や調査によって、該補正や証拠により特許査定できるとの判断が可能な場合、RCE等を行わずに補正や証拠を審査官に考慮させることが可能になります。

AFCPにより、Final後に可能になる補正や応答は以下のようなものです:

1.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or complying with formal requirement(s) in response to objection(s) made in the final office action. (クレームを削除する補正若しくは方式上の拒絶(objection)理由を取り除く補正であって、それにより出願を特許許可できる状態とするもの)

2.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by rewriting objected-to claims in independent form. (方式上の拒絶を受けたクレームを独立形式とする補正であって、それにより出願を特許許可できる状態とするもの)

3.  The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by incorporating limitations from objected-to claims into independent claims, if the new claim can be determined to be allowable with only a limited amount of further consideration or search. (方式上の拒絶を受けたクレームの限定を独立クレームに組み込む補正であって、それにより出願を特許許可できる状態とするものであり、且つ限定的な更なる検討または調査によって、その新たなクレームが特許許可できると判断できる場合)

4.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration, even if new claims are added without cancelling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims. (新たなクレームを追加し、それに相当する数の最終的に拒絶(reject)されたクレームを削除しないような場合であっても、その補正によって、限定的な更なる検討または調査で出願が特許許可できる状態となると判断できるもの )

(*注: 本来は、MPEP714.13において、Final後は、新たなクレームを追加することはできないと規定されている)

5.  The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance by adding new limitation(s) which require only a limited amount of further consideration or search. (限定的な更なる検討または調査のみしか必要としない新たな限定を加える補正であって、その補正により出願が特許許可できる状態となると判断できるもの)

6.  The response comprises a perfected 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration (i.e. a new declaration which corrects formal defects noted in a prior affidavit or declaration) which can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration (37 CFR 1.131 又は 37 CFR 1.132の宣誓供述書(Affidavit)又は宣言書(Declaration)の完全版(即ち、以前に提出されたAffidavit又はDeclarationの形式的な欠陥を訂正したもの)を含む応答であって、その応答により出願が特許許可できる状態となると判断できるもの)

タグ:

特許  米国  出願  クレーム  補正  提出  必要  RCE  米国特許  以下  application  審査  拒絶  or  be  判断  商標  可能  宣誓供述書  手続  意匠  審査官  USPTO  対象  an  Patent  プログラム  検討  not  規定  with  考慮  理由  延長  Final  応答  claim  拒絶理由  Action  Office  期間  action  EP  規則  at  訂正  追加  AFCP  拒絶理由通知  final  RCE  特許査定  調査  実施  最後  claims  証拠  以前  new  prior  search  office  試行  MPEP  通知  許可  declaration  形式  only  削除  限定  into  最終的  made  宣言書  時間  all  相当  Act  amendment  独立  requirement  CFR  Utility  機会  試行期間  米国特許商標庁  consideration  状態  特許許可  even  re  end  without  After  Declaration  現行  Design  完全  affidavit  form  Consideration  further  out  amount  宣誓  Pilot  Affidavit  プロ  formal  response  allowance  ep  side  independent  供述書  determined  condition  limit  rejected  her  per  am  sea  方式上  term  限定的  再考  limited  最終  noted  形式的  本来  以内  宣誓供述  欠陥  require  ratio  number  allow  adding  added  act  place  FR  allowable  able  amend  査定  places  reject  objected  objection  特許商標庁  時間以内  該補正  note  limitations  low  fr  ed 

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 

Utility Models

Q1. What are the differences between a patent and a utility model in Japan? 

A1.  The utility model system in Japan like in other countries having this system is for protecting minor innovations which are often called “small inventions”.

The distinct features of the utility model system are:  

     that a utility model registration is only for protecting “devices” related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (in other words, other inventions, such as methods, chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals, cannot be protected under utility model act);

     that a utility model is registered without substantive examination; and

     that a duration of a registered utility model is only 10 years from the filing date of the utility model application.

Differences between a patent and a utility model are summarized in the following Table.

  Patent Utility Model
Subject of protection Devices, methods, chemical compounds, etc. Devices related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (Methods, chemical compounds, etc. cannot be protected)
Application documents required Specification including Claims and Abstract; and, if any, Drawing(s) (optional) Specification including Claims and Abstract; and Drawing(s) (not omissible)
Substantive examination Request for Examination must be filed within 3 years from the filing date No substantive examination; Registered when basic formal requirements are fulfilled
Time period required for registration Possibly, several years from filing of the Request for Examination About 4-6 months from the filing date
Duration of protection 20 years from the filing date (may be extended in some cases) 10 years from the filing date (non-extensible)
Enforcement of right Enforceable based on granted patent Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion” is necessary for enforcing the utility model right

 

Q2. What is a “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion”?

A2.  The Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion is an assessment report about the registrability (novelty, inventive step, etc.) of a utility model application or a registered utility model.  This report is prepared by an Examiner of the Japan Patent Office upon request and payment of official fees.  Anyone (that is, not only the Applicant of the utility model, but also any third party) can validly file a request for the Report.

As explained in item “A1” above, a utility model is registered without a substantive examination.  In this connection, for an owner of a utility model to enforce the utility model right against an infringer, firstly, a warning accompanied by the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion must be sent to the infringer.  Therefore, the above-mentioned Report is necessary for instituting an infringement suit in Japan.

Q3. Is it possible to convert a patent application into a utility model application?

A3.  Yes.  Conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or 4 months (for Applicants residing outside Japan) from the mailing date of the Decision for Rejection, or within nine years and six months from the filing date of the patent application, whichever expires earlier.  Such a converted utility model application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original patent application, and the original patent application is deemed to be withdrawn.

Q4. Is it possible to convert a utility model application into a patent application?

A4.  Yes.  Conversion of a utility model application (or a registered utility model resulting therefrom) into a patent application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 years from the filing date of the utility model application.  However, it should be noted that such conversion is not allowed after the applicant (or an assignee) has filed a request for the above-mentioned Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion, or after a 30-day period has passed from the date of a first official notice advising that a third party has filed a request for the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion.  Such a converted patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original utility model application, and the original utility model application is deemed to be withdrawn.  (Such a converted patent application cannot be converted back into a utility model application.)

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  not  filing  with  filed  period  Office  date  Examination  at  Request  one  art  rce  invention  after  any  has  grant  request  above  examination  utility  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  model  system  we  documents  should  method  under  between  mentioned  related  all  but  right  small  having  non  must  necessary  also  Decision  third  Report  there  registered  Application  based  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  Utility  so  ex  about  possible  following  What  registration  required  re  fee  granted  month  years  end  without  residing  However  Q2  Q1  party  cannot  Applicant  form  Applicants  prepared  cases  etc  Therefore  out  including  first  Technical  Ex  Examiner  Yes  allowed  differences  do  year  Q3  A3  conversion  requirements  formal  Method  some  ep  articles  protection  benefit  original  side  upon  Claim  infringement  like  Model  Q4  Opinion  article  document  distinct  difference  Reg  construction  A4  device  assignee  warning  Specification  combination  Such  country  basic  countries  notice  outside  extended  her  per  Table  am  inventions  item  inventive  Claims  back  his  result  often  order  nor  noted  novelty  payment  converted  valid  vice  words  compounds  require  ratio  deemed  ability  appropriate  methods  allow  adding  act  place  official  There  part  six  entitled  feature  fees  explained  extensible  devices  connection  day  ended  cells  exam  chemical  How  Subject  able  late  shape  up  own  omissible  minor  protected  protecting  novel  substantive  therefrom  taken  take  note  Re  mailing  accompanied  low  mm  red  passed  Mode  fr  fulfilled  force  convert  ed  earlier  invent  infringer  called  validly  Abstract  Drawing  Dr  suit  try  An  withdrawn  Conversion  Devices  several  Any  Difference 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作