Lost in Translation

Patent terminology needs to be precise.  It is important that when filing a patent in a foreign country, for example, in the national phase of a PCT application, each word of the original specification is accurately translated, and the scope of the invention is maintained.  When translating the original specification (e.g. English) into another language (e.g. Chinese), a word-by-word translation is usually applied, especially when translating the claim language.  However, not each English word has its exact counterpart in Chinese. Sometimes, subtle difference in the definition may lead to Examiner rejections.
My least favorite English word for the month is “schedule”, as in “schedule a clutch operation”.  It is clear in English that when one schedules something, such as scheduling a meeting, you select a time for the meeting.  Thus, when one schedules a clutch operation, the timing of such operation is determined.  In the Chinese specification, a Chinese agent might translate “schedule” into the Chinese word “计划”.  The translation is totally legitimate – one that you can find in any English-Chinese dictionary.  However, there is subtle difference between the two words, the English word “schedule” means “to plan (something) at a certain time”, while the direct translation of the Chinese word “计划” is “plan”.  So you see where the issue is: by translating “schedule” to “计划”, the translation loses the “time” element.  As a result, the Chinese Examiner can reject the Chinese claim for lack of clarity.
When obvious translation errors happen in the national phase of the PCT application, the error may be corrected during patent prosecution by referring back to the original PCT application.  However, when the error is not so obvious, such as the example above, more details may need to be added to the claim language for clarification.
To avoid the translation issue, several strategies may be applied when drafting the original specification.  For example, the specification should have sufficient details to support the relatively abstract or higher level concept disclosed in the claim.  The details may include flow charts and timelines.  Further, it may be helpful to express the same concept using different wording at intermediate levels of abstraction.  Lastly, always use terminology that has been widely accepted in the field.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more