On August 21, 2007 the Patent and Trademark Office published “Changes To Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications” in Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 161.
When it comes to patent translations and to compliance with the U.S. Patent Law at large, you don’t want to gamble with your client’s need for professional foreign-language technical translations. You want to make sure that your client’s application and other technical documents are translated by professional human translators, and not by mindless machines.
The excerpts from the revised USPTO’s rules below stress the importance of professional certified translations of documents written in foreign languages and warn of the likely rejection of poor-quality literal translations and machine translations of non-English language applications, also known as automatic translation.
This 129-page document can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr46716.pdf.
1) Literal translations of foreign-language documents cause compliance problems with U.S. Patent Law. Excerpt from page 46719:
The Office also notes that not every application as filed particularly points out and distinctly claims what the applicant regards as his or her invention. For example, this may occur where the applicant’s attorney or agent has not adequately reviewed or revised the application documents received from the applicant. Applicants frequently file literal s of foreign documents as applications, resulting in problems with compliance with U.S. patent law, such as the written description requirement, as well as problems with formatting and presentation of the claims. In these situations, examination of what applicants actually regard as their invention may not begin until after one or more continued examination filings. Applicants should not rely on an unlimited number of continued examination filings to correct deficiencies in the claims and disclosure that applicant or applicant’s representative could have corrected earlier. In addition, while only a small minority of applications are a third or subsequent continuing application, it appears that some applicants and practitioners have used multiple continued examination filings as a strategy to delay the conclusion of examination. The Office, however, considers such a strategy to be a misuse of continued examination practice. Specifically, the Office considers such a strategy to be inconsistent with an applicant’s and practitioner’s duty under 37 CFR 10.18(b)(2)(i) not to submit an application or other filing to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of prosecution before the Office. This misuse of continued examination practice also prejudices the public by keeping applications in pending status while awaiting developments in similar or parallel technology and then later amending their applications to cover these developments. The courts have permitted the addition of claims, when supported under 35 U.S.C. 112,11, to encompass products or processes later discovered in the marketplace. See PIN/ NIP, Inc. v. Platt Chemical Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1247, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, the practice of maintaining continuing applications to delay the conclusion of examination for the purpose of adding claims after such discoveries is inconsistent with the duty under 37 CFR 10.18(b)(2)(i) not to submit filings to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of prosecution before the Office.
2) On claiming the benefit of a provisional application filed in a language other than English. Excerpt from pages 46723-46724:
Section 1.52 (language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications): Section 1.52(d)(2) is amended to refer to § 1.78(b) concerning the requirements for claiming the benefit of a provisional application in a nonprovisional application. Section 1.52(d)(2) is also amended to provide that if a provisional application is filed in a language other than English and the benefit of such provisional application is claimed in a nonprovisional application, an English language translation of the non-English language provisional application will be required in the provisional application. This change conforms § 1.52(d)(2) to the September 2005 revision to the provisions in § 1.78 for claiming the benefit of a provisional application. See Provisions for Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application With a Non-English Specification and Other Miscellaneous Matters, 70 FR 56119,
6121, 56128 (Sept. 26, 2005), 1299 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142, 143-44, 150 (Oct. 25, 2005) (final rule). With respect to claiming the benefit of a provisional application that was filed in a language other than English, § 1.78(b)(5) now provides that: (1) If the prior-filed provisional application was filed in a language other than English and both an English-language translation of the prior-filed provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate were not previously filed in the prior-filed provisional application, applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file the translation and the statement in the prior-filed provisional application; (2) if the notice is mailed in a pending nonprovisional application, a timely reply to such a notice must include the filing in the nonprovisional application of either a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application, or an amendment or supplemental application data sheet withdrawing the benefit claim, or the nonprovisional application will be abandoned; and (3) the translation and statement may be filed in the provisional application, even if the provisional application has become abandoned.
3) On citing a non-English language document. Excerpt from page 46743:
Section 1.265(c)(4) provides that if a non-English language document is being cited, any existing English language translation of the non-English language document must be submitted if the translation is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual identified in §1.56(c).
4) On examiner’s need to obtain a translation of any foreign-language document. Excerpt from page 46799:
Comment 224: Several comments argued that the examination support document imposes extra burdens on the applicants that are not performed by the Office since applicants are required to translate any foreign documents not in the native language of the applicant and rejections by the Office do not comply with most of the requirements imposed under the rule.
Response: Examiners frequently obtain translations of foreign documents that they consider to be pertinent. Examiners must obtain a translation of any document that is in a language other than English if the examiner seeks to rely on that document in a rejection. See MPEP § 706.02. During examination, examiners cite references that are most closely related to the subject matter of the claims, identify the limitations of the claims that are disclosed by the references being relied upon in a rejection, explain how each of the independent claims are being rejected over the references being applied, and make determinations regarding utility and 35 U.S.C. 112, 11, support and enablement. The requirements in § 1.265 are intended to assist the examiner with the examination process.
5) On patent examiner’s right to reject poor-quality literal or machine translation of a non-English application. Excerpt from page 46824:
Comment 314: One comment suggested that if a specification is a poor-quality literal or machine translation of a non-English language application, the examiner should be permitted to reject the specification as indefinite and provide a time period for applicant to provide a better quality translation.
Response: The goal of the changes in this final rule is to increase quality and decrease pendency of patent applications. To assist the Office in meeting that goal, applicants should file applications that are in condition for examination, or provide corrections no later than the time they are taken up for examination. It should not be necessary for the Office to issue an Office action rejecting or objecting to an application due to informalities. However, if a specification is a poor quality literal translation of a non-English application, the examiner has the authority to object to the specification.
6) On the need to file an English-language translation and a statement that the translation is accurate (also known as “certified translation”). Excerpt from page 46838:
(5) If the prior-filed provisional application was filed in a language other than English and both an English-language translation of the prior-filed provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate were not previously filed in the prior-filed provisional application, applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file the translation and the statement in the prior-filed provisional application. If the notice is mailed in a pending nonprovisional application, a timely reply to such a notice must include the filing in the nonprovisional application of either a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application, or an amendment or supplemental application data sheet withdrawing the benefit claim, or the nonprovisional application will be abandoned. The translation and statement may be filed in the provisional application, even if the provisional application has become abandoned.