within

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 

米国での審査における実施可能性、新規性、非自明性の判断基準について

米国での審査通知への回答書において米国代理人が米国審査基準(MPEP)に参照して実施可能性・新規性・非自明性の法律的基準について述べた説明で、原則的な部分を理解する上で参考になるものがありましたので、多少補足を加えた上で、以下に紹介します。参考までに、英語と日本語訳文の両方を併記します。

Legal Standard for Enablement(実施可能性の法律的基準について)

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(連邦巡回裁判所はたびたび、以下の趣旨の判断を示してきた:「明細書は、当業者が『過度な実験』を行なうことなく本発明の全範囲を実現して使用するための方法を教示しなければならない」)

Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. In fact, what is well-known is best omitted. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991).(しかし、発明の実施に必要な全てを開示する必要はない。実際、周知のものは省略しても構わない。)

All that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. Further the scope of enablement must only bear a "reasonable correlation" to the scope of the claims. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).(必要なことは、当業界の知識と技術の水準に鑑みて、クレームされた発明を当業者が実施できるように記載されていることだけである。)

As concerns the breadth of a claim relevant to enablement, the only relevant concern should be whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).(実施可能性との関連におけるクレームの広さについては、明細書の開示により当業者に提供された実施可能性と、クレームが要求する保護の範囲とが一致していさえすればよい。) How a teaching is set forth, by specific example or broad terminology, is not important. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).(教示の記載の仕方については、どのように記載されていても構わず、具体的実施態様による記載でもよいし、広い用語による記載でもよい。)

Legal Standard for Determining Anticipation(新規性判断の法律的基準について)

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(クレームに記載される全ての要素が明示的または潜在的に単一の先行技術文献に記載されている場合にのみ、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (クレームが複数の構造や組成物を含む場合には、複数の構造または複数の組成物のいずれか1でも先行技術文献に記載されているならば、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).(クレームされるものと詳細まで完全に一致する発明が示されていることが必要である)

The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).(クレームが要求する通りに要素が配置されていることが必要であるが、用語が同一である必要はない。)

Legal Standard for Prima Facie Obviousness (一応の自明性の判断の法律的基準について)

MPEP § 2141 sets forth the guidelines in determining obviousness. First, the Examiner has to take into account the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), which has provided the controlling framework for an obviousness analysis.(MPEP § 2141には、自明性を判断するガイドラインが示されている。審査官は、まず、グラハム事件で採用された事実認定基準(いわゆる、Grahamテスト)を考慮しなければならない。) The four Graham factors are(4つのGrahamテストは以下の通りである):

(a) determining the scope and contents of the prior art(先行技術の範囲と内容を決定すること);

(b) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue(先行技術と当該クレームとの差を明確にすること);

(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art(当業者の技術水準を確定すること); and

(d) evaluating any evidence of secondary considerations(二次的考慮事項の証拠を評価すること). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

Second, the Examiner has to provide some rationale for determining obviousness.(次に審査官は、自明性を支持するための何らかの論理付けを提示することが必要である。) MPEP § 2143 sets forth some rationales that were established in the recent decision of KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)(MPEP § 2143には、KSR事件で確立された論理付けが示されている。). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include(自明性を支持するための典型的な論理付けは以下の通りである。):

(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results(先行技術の要素を公知の方法で組み合わせて予想可能な結果を得ること);

(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results(ある公知の要素を他の要素で単純に置換して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(c) use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way(公知技術を用いて類似の装置(方法や製品)を同様に改善すること);

(d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results(改善可能な状態にある公知の装置(方法や製品)に公知技術を適用して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(e) "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success(「試みることが自明」-成功するという合理的な期待を持って、特定された予測可能な有限個の解決方法から選択すること);

(f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art(ある技術分野において公知のものは、設計上の動機やその他の市場の力に基づいて、同じ技術分野や異なる技術分野で使用するためのバリエーションが当業者によって予測可能であれば、そのようなバリエーションを促すかもしれない。); and

(g) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.(先行技術文献を改変したり先行技術文献の教示を組み合わせてクレームされた発明に到達するように当業者を導いたであろう、先行技術における教示、示唆または動機。)

As the MPEP directs, all claim limitations must be considered in view of the cited prior art in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.03.(MPEPが示すように、一応の自明性を確立するためには、引用例に鑑みてクレームの全ての限定事項を考慮する必要がある。)

タグ:

米国  クレーム  発明  日本  新規性  記載  必要  明細書  以下  審査  or  be  先行技術  判断  可能  英語  審査官  開示  適用  要求  方法  an  範囲  説明  可能性  not  選択  本発明  with  同様  design  考慮  具体的  日本語  claim  明確  実際  使用  審査通知  同一  特定  公知  先行技術文献  EP  文献  at  技術  one  引用  art  当業者  基準  rce  採用  invention  事件  実験  実施  claims  any  証拠  提供  内容  理解  has  審査基準  prior  非自明性  結果  MPEP  通知  詳細  複数  関連  entity  only  ガイドライン  case  within  solution  決定  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  限定  use  技術分野  other  into  参考  issue  自明性  may  要素  自明  we  should  method  specification  合理的  between  Fed  原則的  事項  results  提示  all  but  right  解決  評価  組成物  類似  must  necessary  same  示唆  用語  趣旨  based  明示的  保護  部分  回答  KSR  obviousness  態様  would  so  欠如  ex  Cir  両方  知識  consideration  practice  製品  required  scope  認定  reasonable  状態  回答書  re  新規性判断  similar  ライン  disclosure  each  end  without  Q2  2d  single  置換  national  教示  完全  Further  identified  法律  装置  公知技術  到達  International  成功  claimed  米国代理人  out  shown  skill  need  周知  一応  example  予測  Ex  USPQ2d  Examiner  期待  skilled  secondary  引用例  either  provide  典型的  当該  テスト  differences  provided  test  裁判所  were  known  very  潜在的  補足  given  some  ep  those  確立  予想  protection  仕方  obtain  structure  make  side  明示  set  ordinary  reason  knowledge  well  include  実施可能  reference  原則  teach  cited  another  difference  device  実施可能性  determining  different  limit  Graham  decision  important  3d  USPQ  動機  her  found  per  elements  element  am  work  whether  apply  technique  product  predictable  実現  支持  term  evidence  enablement  非自明  his  forth  rolling  result  expectation  全範囲  order  事実  紹介  訳文  success  described  disclosed  論理  cover  代理  一致  二次的考慮事項  vice  what  単一  単純  prima  products  contained  composition  require  法律的基準  ratio  改善  Legal  deemed  obvious  number  methods  裁判  act  Second  設計  closed  omitted  less  構造  lines  確定  CCPA  specific  she  facie  facto  field  every  four  due  how  First  技術水準  analysis  devices  予想可能  combine  correlation  組成  certain  exam  established  Federal  How  配置  able  actual  Standard  Obviousness  論理付  view  verbis  variations  show  up  ipsissimis  own  日本語訳  over  多少  now  motivation  support  市場  teaching  take  改変  新規  過度  二次的  予測可能  省略  先行  明細  解決方法  設計上  業界  バリエーション  See  oa  Wright  limitations  account  according  Teleflex  mm  Prima  range  read  rationales  John  relevant  relation  recent  red  framework  fr  full  force  considered  content  hard  considerations  contents  establish  evaluating  everything  ed  experimentation  fact  ip  invent  broad  anticipated  arranged  conclusion  compositions  inherently  All  suggestion  try  Facie  terminology  undue  An  simple  yield  Circuit  sets  several  structures  Deere  way 

《拒絶理由通知、特許査定》

拒絶理由通知(和英)

原文:

 

拒絶理由通知書

特許出願の番号      特願2009-XXXXXX

起案日          平成21年XX月XX日

特許庁審査官       XX XX        3409 2J00

特許出願人代理人     XX XX 様

適用条文         第29条第2項

 

 この出願は、次の理由によって拒絶をすべきものです。これについて意見がありましたら、この通知書の発送の日から60日以内に意見書を提出してください。

理 由

 

 この出願の下記の請求項に係る発明は、その出願前日本国内又は外国において頒布された下記の刊行物に記載された発明又は電気通信回線を通じて公衆に利用可能となった発明に基いて、その出願前にその発明の属する技術の分野における通常の知識を有する者が容易に発明をすることができたものであるから、特許法第29条第2項の規定により特許を受けることができない。

記 (引用文献等は引用文献等一覧参照)

 ・請求項6 に対して 引用文献1,2

  請求項6には、「請求項1の方法を実施するために用いるシステムであって」と記載されているが、この記載は、システムの構成を限定するものではない。

 引用文献1には、被検査体の内部を減圧し、超音波を用いて被検査体の内圧を測定し、漏洩孔の有無を検査する装置が開示されている。

 そして、引用文献2には、圧力を超音波の位相差に基づいて測定する構成が開示されており、また、どのような手法により圧力を測定するかは、当業者が適宜選択すべき事項である。

 してみれば、引用文献1に記載の発明において、引用文献2に記載の圧力測定を採用することで、本願請求項6に係る発明とすることは、当業者にとって容易に想到し得ることである。

 よって、引用文献1,2に記載の発明に基いて、本願請求項6に係る発明とすることは、当業者にとって容易に想到し得ることである。


<拒絶の理由を発見しない請求項>

 請求項1-5に係る発明については、現時点では、拒絶の理由を発見しない。

拒絶の理由が新たに発見された場合には拒絶の理由が通知される。

引 用 文 献 等 一 覧

1.特開2004-XXXXX号公報

2.特開2002-XXXXXX号公報

------------------------------------

先行技術文献調査結果の記録

・調査した分野  IPC G01M3/00-3/40

             G01L11/00-11/06

・先行技術文献 

  特開2006-XXXXX号公報

  特開昭60-XXXXXX号公報

 この先行技術文献調査結果の記録は、拒絶理由を構成するものではない。

 この拒絶理由通知の内容に関するお問い合わせ、または面接のご希望がございましたら下記までご連絡下さい。

特許審査第1部 材料分析  XXXX

TEL.03(XXXX)XXXX 内線XXXX

 

英訳文:

Notification of Reasons for Refusal

Patent Application No.:    2009-XXXXXX

Drafting Date:   XXXXXX, 2009

Examiner:   XXXXXXX         3409 2J00

Agent for Applicant:  XXXXX XXXXXXX

Articles of the Patent Law applied to: Article 29, item 2

     The present application should be rejected for the following reasons.  A response to this notification, if any, should be filed within 60 days from the date of mailing of this notification. 

REASONS

     The invention of the below-mentioned claim of the present application could be easily made by those having ordinary skill in the art, based on either an invention described in the below-mentioned publications which were distributed prior to the filing date of the present application in Japan or in a foreign country or an invention which became available to the public through electric telecommunication lines prior to the filing date of the present application.  Therefore, the invention of the below-mentioned claim of the present application should not be patented under Article 29, item 2 of the Patent Law.

NOTE (References cited herein are listed below)

• Claim 6  -  to be rejected over References 1 and 2

     Claim 6 has a description reading: “a system for practicing the method of claim 1”.  However, this description does not limit the construction of the system.

     Reference 1 discloses an apparatus for performing a method comprising decompressing the inside of a test subject and measuring the internal pressure of the test subject by using an ultrasonic wave, to thereby determine the presence or absence of a leak hole.

     Reference 2 discloses a construction for measuring a pressure, based on a phase difference of ultrasonic waves.  Those having ordinary skill in the art may appropriately choose how to measure a pressure.

     Thus, it would be easy for those having ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure measurement technique of Reference 2 in the invention of Reference 1, to thereby make the invention of claim 6 of the present application.

     Therefore, based on the inventions of References 1 and 2, the invention of claim 6 of the present application would have been easily conceived by those having ordinary skill in the art.


     At present, there has been found no reason to reject claims 1 to 5.

     A further office action will be issued when there is found any reason to reject claims 1 to 5.

List of references cited

1.   Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2004-XXXXX

2.   Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2002-XXXXXX

--------------------------------------------------------------

Record of the results of the prior art search

• Field searched   IPC  G01M3/00-3/40

                           G01L11/00-11/06

• Prior art documents  

     Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2006-XXXXX

     Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. Sho 60-XXXXXX

      The above record of the prior art search does not constitute the reasons for rejection.

      If there is any question about the content of this notification of reasons for rejection or if an interview is desired, please contact the following person.

Examination Division 1, Materials Analysis, XXXXX XXXXX

TEL 03(XXXX)XXXX  Extension XXXX

 

特許査定(和英)

原文:

特許査定

特許出願の番号      特願2007-XXXXXX

起案日          平成20年 X月XX日

特許庁審査官       XX XX        9130 2B00

発明の名称        XXXXシステム

請求項の数         13

特許出願人        XXXX株式会社

 

 この出願については、拒絶の理由を発見しないから、特許査定をします。

 

部長/代理  審査長/代理 審査官    審査官補    分類確定官 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     

1.出願種別        通常

2.参考文献        有

3.特許法第30条適用   無

4.発明の名称の変更    無

5.国際特許分類(IPC)

          A01G 31/00   606,
          A01G 27/00   502K,
          A01G 27/00   502L=
          A01G 13/00   302Z  

6.菌寄託

7.出願日の遡及を認めない旨の表示

参考情報

特許出願の番号      特願2007-XXXXXX 

1.調査した分野(IPC,DB名) 

 A01G  31/00
 A01G  27/00
 A01G  13/00     

2.参考特許文献

 特開2003-XXXXXX             (JP,A)
 特開2006-XXXXXX             (JP,A)    

3.参考図書雑誌

英訳文:

DECISION TO GRANT A PATENT

Patent Application No.: 2007-XXXXX

Drafting Date:          XXXXXX, 2008

Examiner:               XXXXXX XXXXXX, 9130 2B00

Title of the Invention: XXXXX system

Number of Claims:       13

Applicant:              XXXXX

 

No reason for rejection is found concerning the present application and, hence, a patent is granted.

 

(Acting) Division Manager   (Acting) Examiner-in-chief   Examiner   Assistant Examiner   Classification-finalizing officer  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     

1.   Type of application                      General

2.   References                               Yes

3.   Application of Art. 30 of the Patent Law       No

4.   Change of Title of the Invention               No

5.   International Patent Classification (IPC)
                 A01G 31/00 606,
                 A01G 27/00 502K,
                 A01G 27/00 502L=
                 A01G 13/00 302Z 

6.   Depository of microorganisms

7.   Indication that the retroaction of the filing date is not permitted

Reference information

Patent Application No. 2007-XXXXXX

1.   Searched Field (IPC, DB name)
     A01G  31/00
     A01G  27/00
     A01G  13/00

2.   Reference patent document
     JP 2003-XXXXXX        (JP,A)
     JP 2006-XXXXXX        (JP,A)

3.   Reference literature/journal

タグ:

特許  出願  発明  日本  記載  提出  application  審査  拒絶  or  be  patent  先行技術  可能  請求項  出願人  特許出願  利用  審査官  開示  適用  Japan  方法  an  Patent  請求  Japanese  特許庁  外国  not  選択  filing  規定  with  通常  変更  情報  理由  filed  claim  拒絶理由  特許審査  先行技術文献  action  文献  date  Examination  at  意見書  技術  容易  one  引用  art  当業者  拒絶理由通知  特許法  採用  final  出願日  特許査定  invention  原文  present  調査  実施  claims  引用文献  any  内容  has  grant  prior  search  結果  office  30  通知  above  epo  file  been  英訳文  within  英訳  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  平成  限定  use  参考  issue  IP  may  phase  will  system  we  documents  should  method  under  made  29  事項  mentioned  results  構成  but  Article  having  Act  国内  inter  through  information  there  Application  based  Art  Prior  20  XXXXXX  would  so  ex  about  拒絶理由通知書  知識  foreign  following  31  時点  発見  和英  下記  re  特許法第  granted  publication  rejection  34  However  会社  comprising  Applicant  national  装置  意見  form  using  issued  International  想到  現時点  システム  XXXX  Therefore  further  out  XX  Invention  skill  希望  subject  Law  public  Ex  Search  Examiner  有無  either  XXXXX  遡及  question  Yes  person  日本国内  条第  00  do  PATENT  does  test  were  日以内  days  XXX  分析  response  刊行物  ep  those  21  Reference  make  side  国際特許  ordinary  A01G  Claim  reason  reasons  13  reference  50  40  available  番号  applied  document  cited  apparatus  difference  A01G  construction  条文  limit  Specification  country  name  below  11  references  rejected  her  found  測定  per  electric  Date  am  sea  inventions  item  Title  Claims  technique  term  his  herein  result  特開  連絡  notification  References  60  訳文  EC  本願請求項  described  description  could  調査結果  代理  以内  出願前  号公報  適宜選択  Open  pressure  reading  Laid  Unexamined  appropriate  表示  act  listed  There  lines  確定  hence  easily  特願  hereby  how  27  2007  特開昭  内部  特許文献  desired  発明又  day  exam  先行技術文献調査結果  Division  IPC  How  IPC  Assistant  Analysis  Thus  Type  記録  TEL  able  view  手法  名称  査定  over  please  perform  measuring  reject  measurement  国際  漏洩  分類  出願種別  利用可能  通信  起案日  超音波  JP  電気通信回線  302  2006  02  参考文献  公報  先行  特許庁審査官  圧力  被検査体  日本国  条適用  株式会社  oa  Reasons  Re  Refusal  mailing  absence  XXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  list  low  mm  read  publications  red  permitted  performing  presence  practicing  fr  forming  content  ed  discloses  easy  ip  became  invent  internal  concerning  inform  came  choose  Acting  Drafting  Dr  searched  try  Field  ultrasonic  Extension  An  Change  Classification  DE  GRANT  General  thereby 

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]

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.


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作