可以將英文說明書沒有翻譯到的部份再補到英文說明書之內嗎

18 posts / 0 new
最新回應
訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
可以將英文說明書沒有翻譯到的部份再補到英文說明書之內嗎

我的美國專利申請是以台灣優先權進行申請, 但是英文說明書沒有完整的翻譯中文說明書, 致在答辯時遭遇到困境, 我的問題是可不可以在提RCE時將遺漏的部分(一些例子說明)再補到英文說明書之內嗎? 如果可以, 是透過哪些方式呢?
煩請各位賢達不吝賜教, 謝謝

spc (未確認)
訪客 的照片
最好不要用RCE的方式

(1)如果不幸被二次核駁(FINAL)
用RCE再審的方式,將來核准的機會極小,
建議用CIP方式,就是稍作改良重新申請,
二者的規費差不多,但是CIP的成功機會比較大
(2)既然已經有審查報告出來,除非審查員要求你修改說明書的內容,
否則儘量不要變動,否則他會認為這是新發明,請你重新申請,
因為美國(其它國家也一樣)的專利局也想多賺錢
(3)審查是以CLAIM為重心,如果不修改它,
只改其它部分,亳無意義,而且稍不小心就會
變成上述(2)的情況,請你重新申請
(4)還有問題,可以與我聯絡:
eval(unescape('%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%61%20%68%72%65%66%3d%22%6d%61%69%6c%74%6f%3a%70%65%6e%67%70%74%40%68%6f%74%6d%61%69%6c%2e%63%6f%6d%2e%74%77%22%3e%70%65%6e%67%70%74%40%68%6f%74%6d%61%69%6c%2e%63%6f%6d%2e%74%77%3c%2f%61%3e%27%29%3b'))

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
感謝 大大的說明 (真是血淚的教訓!)

感謝 大大的說明 (真是血淚的教訓!)

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
這位朋友,您可能連RCE和CIP的主要功能都搞不懂,我覺得

這位朋友,您可能連RCE和CIP的主要功能都搞不懂,我覺得你應該沒有美國代理人資格。
不要在這裡陷害無辜的發明人,您的『專業』意見在美國會被申請人告業務過失。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客

訪客 wrote:這位朋友,您可能連RCE和CIP的主要功能都搞不懂,我覺得你應該沒有美國代理人資格。
不要在這裡陷害無辜的發明人,您的『專業』意見在美國會被申請人告業務過失。

講得太嚴重了
如果一開始主張本國優先文件及其對應美國申請案中並無載明"本案相關內容係有主張優先權故全文引用等"即並未一開始寫進至美專說明書內, 而倘若說明書技術記載內容有漏翻, 基本上是不能主張回補漏翻的內容, RCE也不行因為當時送件的版本就必需以漏翻的版本作為審理, 不得再增內容, 就漏翻部份若有技術特徵可供為保護條件當然可再考慮申請CIP並記載至權利要求中

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
You can still correct/amend

You can still correct/amend your translation as long as there is no new matter.
Also, give Examiner a call to discuss about the translation problem and allowable subject matter.

Prior BPAI decision based on CCPA In re Oda.
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd012138

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Your comments on CIP is not

Your comments on CIP is not quite correct. Of course, you can use CIP to include any new matter not included in the originally filed specification, but this issue is about how to "re-introduce" the subject matter included in the priority foreign specification. Filing a CIP, all the effective dates for the added matter would be the new filing date, which cannot claim priority to the parent application, nor the foreign priority application.

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客 wrote:You can still

訪客 wrote:You can still correct/amend your translation as long as there is no new matter.
Also, give Examiner a call to discuss about the translation problem and allowable subject matter.

Prior BPAI decision based on CCPA In re Oda.
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd012138

You have cited a NON-PRECEDENT case. This case has no binding value on the patent office...

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客 wrote:Your comments on CIP

訪客 wrote:Your comments on CIP is not quite correct. Of course, you can use CIP to include any new matter not included in the originally filed specification, but this issue is about how to "re-introduce" the subject matter included in the priority foreign specification. Filing a CIP, all the effective dates for the added matter would be the new filing date, which cannot claim priority to the parent application, nor the foreign priority application.

應該還未提到主張優先權吧
前提只是未翻若有特徵在原始送美國版說明書已成定局下
若有能夠主張之特徵就只能視作CIP玩

一般漏翻幾乎就是NEW MATTER的同義詞
是以很難被接受

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Sure, find me a binding case

Sure, find me a binding case that you can't do.

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:You can still

訪客 wrote:You can still correct/amend your translation as long as there is no new matter.
Also, give Examiner a call to discuss about the translation problem and allowable subject matter.

Prior BPAI decision based on CCPA In re Oda.
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd012138
--------------

謝謝提供資訊。

另外還可參考
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2163.htm
2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, "Written Description" Requirement [R-5]

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971).

頁面

Log in or register to post comments