Patent Translations for non english patents

There is always a problem with translations in the hunt of most relevant prior art. I have dealt with the same on numerous occasions. though there are some tips which can help to get some good machine translation free of cost, as most of the time searcher only needs an idea of how invention works.

JAPAN

As japan is a major patent authority it is often required that Japanese patents can be machine translated though PAJ provides good and reliable machine translation but it only works for patents published after 1992. Before it there is not much patent translation available even subscription based patent searching databases only offer translation for Japanese patents after 1992.

Note: In case the Japanese patent is filed in WIPO you can obtain its translation via patent scope using google translator OR microsoft translator.

KOREA

Korean patents make things worse as the translation from Google translator is not very good. though in case patent is published after 2006 thomson innovation gives a good patent translation through its in house machine translation.

Note: In case Korean patent is filed in WIPO, you can obtain its translation via patent scope using KIPRIS translation which otherwise would cost 40$.

China 

chinese patent translation is new thing to patent searchers but as the filing is increasing very rapidly in chinese patent office. Chinese translations are also very vital to patent searching, all subscription based patent search database provide acceptable translation for Chinese patents, but for better one you can use SIPO translator. which gives better translation than Google OR Microsoft.

if any buddy has some other advises please leave comments. thanks

Google's updated Prior Art Search

Recently Google has added a new service to its patent search service "Prior art search".



the blue button left to read this patent.

This tool tries to find relevant prior art to the subject patent. It is a good value addition by google though it is still in its early stages and results are not very good but it is likely to get better. There is the screen shot that how it works.

There is also a addition by google to its patent search engine. now EU patents can also be searched on google, hope google makes a excellent free prior art search database.

Inventive Step

In many laws, the inventive step requirement means that a claimed invention shall not be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the filing date (or, where applicable, priority date), or at the time the invention was made, in view of the prior art. In some countries, instead of the expression “obvious” (or “non-obvious”), expressions such as “inventions which could have been easily made” or “[an invention] having prominent substantive features and representing a notable progress” appear in national laws. Whatever term is used, the definition of “prior art” or “state of the art”, directly affects the determination of the inventive step. Where the scope of the prior art is limited, it is more likely that a certain claimed invention would be considered as involving an inventive step. Further, as for the novelty requirement, the interpretation and determination of the scope of the claimed invention is essential for the determination of the inventive step. 

National and regional authorities have developed various methodologies that can be applied when assessing inventive step, such as the “problem and solution”-approach used in the EPO, the “Graham test” in the United States of America and the “reasoning test” in Japan. Further, the interpretation of the term “inventive step”(“non-obviousness”) by national courts has developed into a body of case law in many countries. Since a vast majority of inventions are based on existing inventions, how to assess inventive step in an invention based on a combination of existing features has been extensively developed in a number of jurisdictions. Based on such case law, a number of patent offices publish examination guidelines, which are addressed primarily to the office’s examiners for consistent application of the law, but also to applicants and patent practitioners for a better understanding of office practices.64 Such examination guidelines typically contain the methodology, various factors to be taken into consideration (for example, problems to be solved by the invention, advantageous effects of the invention and secondary considerations such as commercial success and long-felt needs) and practical examples in various technical fields.