stage

Samples

The following is a list of some examples of US patents obtained through our firm.

We suppose that it might be rather difficult for most of the non-Japanese clients to evaluate the quality of our works done for Japanese IP rights.

For such non-Japanese clients, the US patents listed may be useful for evaluating our abilities. We always dedicate tremendous efforts to draft English claims and specifications properly. For example, in the case of PCT applications, we draft Japanese specifications for PCT based on Japanese patent applications which had often been prepared and filed through other Japanese IP firms or by Japanese applicants themselves.

We usually make considerable modifications to the original Japanese specifications and claims for filing PCT applications. Especially in the case where the basic Japanese application has not been filed through our firm, we thoroughly check the application and usually redraft the claims into a form which has more clear and logical construction and can cover a desired protective scope, and also redraft the specification by supplementing information necessary to enable the invention or information which might be useful in the later prosecution stage for overcoming possible rejections.

Therefore, it can be said that, in many cases, the US patents are our translations of the Japanese language PCT specifications drafted by our firm.

We sometimes ask US patent attorneys to check our drafts of English specifications, but they usually find that no substantial change is necessary.

In addition, during the prosecutions of the foreign patent applications, our draft responses (amendments and arguments) are usually submitted to the patent offices without any substantial changes or with only minor changes.

Consequently, we believe that the US patents listed here would be of great help for you to evaluate our skills in IP business.

The documents which we prepare have been highly esteemed by the foreign patent attorneys.

タグ:

PCT  application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Japanese  not  filing  with  filed  claim  at  one  invention  claims  any  has  applications  office  file  only  been  case  such  use  other  into  IP  may  we  more  documents  specification  all  but  right  non  We  necessary  also  amendment  through  information  based  patents  translations  applicant  would  so  amendments  ex  possible  high  rights  foreign  following  time  said  scope  re  end  rejection  without  business  English  obtained  form  prepared  cases  Therefore  out  skill  quality  example  many  during  prosecution  do  clients  substantial  stage  usually  firm  response  translation  some  where  ep  clear  obtain  original  later  make  side  had  document  construction  basic  they  her  specifications  firms  per  applicants  am  work  always  addition  arguments  attorneys  drafted  often  nor  cover  submitted  times  useful  listed  There  specific  draft  highly  desired  change  exam  done  Consequently  able  amend  language  late  up  over  reject  minor  most  skills  submit  help  special  offices  abilities  man  list  low  logical  might  rather  red  redraft  prosecutions  protective  considerable  great  examples  evaluating  esteemed  evaluate  ed  find  invent  attorney  believe  inform  check  changes  suppose  Especially  works  way 

《論文》

(和英)

原文:

特に現在の主流であるモノコック構造で車体本体には影響が無いフロントフェンダーの樹脂化 を中心に検討と採用が行われている。 但しコストについては、車両の製造から出荷そしてリサ イクルに至るまでトータルに考える必要がある。例えば製品設計の段階で部品の統合化、組み 立てラインのレイアウト、部品の輸送コスト、設計の複雑さ(設計のデザインによっては鉄の方 がコスト高になり、樹脂を使用すれば設計上の自由度が高い)、車両購入者に対して付加価値と なると思われる損傷性の向上、修理コスト及び車両保険コストの削減などが考えられる。

英訳文:

Especially, the application of a resin as a substitute raw material is considered or has been put into practice mainly in the production of front fenders which have no influence on the strength of automobile bodies having a currently predominant monocoque structure.  However, as far as the production cost is concerned, the entire process form the production and shipment of automobiles through the recycling should be comprehensively taken into consideration.  For example, considerations should be given to: the unification of parts at the design stage; the layout of assembly lines; the transportaion costs for parts; the complexity in design (the use of steel may result in a higher cost depending on the design, while the use of a resin increases freedom of design); and the damage resistance of an automobile, and the reduction in repair cost and physical damage cover, which would be perceived as added values by consumers.

翻訳の質:レベル1(最低限度の品質)

レベル1の「その分野で適切な用語を使用して翻訳されている」は、プロの翻訳者であれば当然です。特に近年のITインフラの発達とウェブ上で提供されるコンテンツの充実により、殆どの分野でかなり専門的な用語も比較的容易に調べることができます。

それが出来ないようではプロ失格ですが、特に安い単価で受けている翻訳会社などでは、このレベルにも達していない翻訳が提供されることが少なくありません。単価が安ければ、利益を出すためにノルマも厳しいでしょうから、ある意味当然と言えるでしょう。

過去に、何度か弊所以外で作成された翻訳のチェックを依頼されたことがありますが、プロの仕事とは思えないような低品質の翻訳が提供されていることもあります。例えば、比較的最近、低料金の翻訳会社で行われた英文特許出願明細書の和訳文のチェックを依頼されましたが、理解が困難な日本語文章になっている箇所が少なからず存在し、更に誤訳や不適切な翻訳もかなりありました。そのような誤訳や不適切な翻訳の例を幾つか挙げます。

 ・ 特許出願の製法クレームにおける “step” (工程)が「段階」と翻訳されていた。100%間違いとは言えないが、特許の製法クレームに関する限り、極めて不自然(awkward)な翻訳である。(「段階」と訳されるのは、通常“stage”や “phase”など。)

 ・ 同じく製法クレームにおける"maneuvering the cartridge to ・・・"という表現が「・・・へカートリッジを操作する」 と翻訳されていた。"maneuver"には、確かに「操作する」という意味もあるが、文脈や図面から「誘導する」と訳すことが妥当であることが明らかであった。

 ・ “loading A within B” が 「AにBを積み込む」と翻訳されていた。これでは原文と意味が逆になってしまう。恐らく、原文における“within”を“with”と読み違えた結果と思われる。

 ・ 文脈から撹拌装置を指すことが明らかな “agitation device” が「振動デバイス」と翻訳されていた。「振動デバイス」という表現は、一般的には携帯電話等に使用する“vibration device”や水晶振動デバイス(crystal oscillator)などを表し、撹拌装置を表す表現としては一般的ではない。

その他にもこれに類する問題が多々ありました。現実に、このレベルの翻訳文で提出されてしまっている特許出願が少なくありません。

この件は、出願人に問題点を説明したところ、それ以後、弊所にお任せ頂けるようになりました。あまり料金が安い翻訳会社は、ほぼ必ず質が犠牲にされていると考えて間違いないと思います。

高品質な技術翻訳(特許出願明細書等)井上アソシエイツ 次へ[レベル2:標準的品質]

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 

Appeal against the Decision for Rejection

Q1. We understand that an Appeal can be filed against the Decision for Rejection.  What are the steps necessary for filing an Appeal?

A1.  Firstly, a Notice of Appeal, which is a formal document requesting the initiation of Appeal Proceedings, is filed by the deadline which is three months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or four months (for foreign Applicants) from the dispatch date of the Decision for Rejection. 

Further, any amendment  (if any) must be filed simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  (In the case of patent applications filed on or before March 31, 2007, divisional applications can be filed only simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  In the case of parent patent applications filed on or after April 1, 2007, divisional applications can be filed either before, simultaneously with or after the filing of the Notice of Appeal as long as it is before the expiration of the above-mentioned deadline for filing the Notice of Appeal.)  With respect to the amendment, please note that there is a restriction to the permissible claim amendments.  Please see section “Restriction to Permissible Claim Amendments after Final Rejection” for more details.

Next, any arguments, reference materials and/or experimental reports are filed as an Appeal Brief (i.e., Reasons for Appeal).  The Appeal Brief can be filed either simultaneously with the Notice of Appeal or after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  When the Appeal Brief is not filed with the Notice of Appeal, the due date for filing the Appeal Brief will be set by the Japan Patent Office, and it is usually about 2 months from the filing date of the Notice of Appeal.

Q2. Is it possible to obtain any extension of deadline for filing the Notice of Appeal or the Appeal Brief?

A2.  No.  The deadlines for filing a Notice of Appeal and an Appeal Brief are non-extensible

Q3. Is it possible to submit new experimental data in the appeal stage?

A3.  Yes.  Any experimental data can be filed together with the Appeal Brief except that effectiveness of data may vary depending on the purpose of the data.

Submission of data for demonstrating novelty and/or inventive step of an invention over prior art is effective if the data itself is appropriate for this purpose; whereas data submitted at the appeal stage cannot compensate for the lack of enabling disclosure or lack of support in the specification, and such data are usually dismissed as late filed.

The Japanese patent system does not allow for applicants to establish the enabling disclosure requirement and/or supporting disclosure requirement through later-filed evidence. That is, these requirements must be satisfied by the patent application as filed, and later-filed data for making up the deficiency in this respect will not be admitted by the JPO.

Q4. Is there an opportunity to file additional amendments and/or divisional applications after the filing of the Notice of Appeal?

A4.  Concerning additional amendments after the filing of the Notice of Appeal, such additional amendments are admissible only when the applicant responds to a Notice of Rejection which may or may not be issued in the appeal stage.   That is, the applicant may not be given any opportunity to file an amendment after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  Therefore, it is safer to consider that the time of filing of the Notice of Appeal is substantially the last chance to file amendments.

On the other hand, as mentioned in A1 above, in the case of patent applications filed on or after April 1, 2007, divisional applications may be filed even after the filing of the Notice of Appeal as long as it is before the expiration of the deadline for filing the Notice, i.e., three months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or four months (for foreign Applicants) from the dispatch date of the Decision for Rejection.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  JPO  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  filed  Final  claim  Office  date  at  one  art  invention  after  any  Appeal  Notice  new  prior  applications  request  above  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  such  other  divisional  issue  may  months  will  system  more  under  specification  mentioned  all  non  must  We  necessary  amendment  Decision  through  there  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  so  amendments  ex  effective  about  possible  foreign  What  time  even  steps  re  parent  month  disclosure  end  residing  Q2  Q1  cannot  Applicant  April  before  Further  form  Applicants  issued  long  Therefore  out  simultaneously  either  Yes  Proceedings  do  permissible  year  Q3  does  A3  substantial  stage  usually  data  requirements  respect  formal  given  where  ep  obtain  later  Please  side  set  Claim  restriction  materials  material  reference  Brief  Q4  expiration  document  appeal  details  A4  Restriction  deadline  these  satisfied  her  per  pending  applicants  see  three  am  its  inventive  additional  addition  arguments  evidence  Permissible  his  March  extension  novelty  submitted  together  understand  Next  depending  require  ratio  appropriate  allow  There  lines  specific  Amendments  substantially  four  section  due  First  experimental  extensible  dispatch  day  Amendment  Concerning  amend  late  vary  making  self  up  itself  over  please  novel  purpose  support  submit  note  Reasons  Re  opportunity  low  With  fr  except  effect  establish  enabling  ed  invent  lack  An  Any  whereas  requesting  Firstly 

Restriction to Permissible Claim Amendments after Final Rejection

Q. We understand that permissible claim amendments are restricted after the issuance of a final rejection.  Please explain about the restriction.

A.  Permissible claim amendments are restricted after the issuance of not only the Final Notice of Rejection, but also after the Decision for Rejection.  Further, this restriction applies to a divisional application filed from a parent application filed on or after April 1, 2007 and containing claims which can be rejected on the same ground as the parent application. 

The permissible amendments are (i) deletion of a claim(s), (ii) amendment for limiting the scope of the invention without increasing the number of claims, (iii) amendments for removing clerical errors, and (iv) amendments for clarifying an unclear expression.  Other claim amendments are not permissible at this stage.  For example, the following amendments are not permissible even when the claims are fully supported by the specification as filed:

   (a) Addition of a new claim directed to a subject matter not described in the claims;

   (b)  Addition of a new subclaim for limiting the scope of an independent claim; and

   (c)  Amendment for changing the category of a claim (such as, changing a product-by-process claim into a process claim).

Addition of a new subclaim is permissible when the amendment is made for clarifying an unclear expression.  For example, when there is a claim reading “A composition containing X, preferably Y”, amending this claim to “A composition containing X” and adding a subclaim reading “Composition according to claim N, wherein said X is Y” will be permissible.


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作