(a) deletion of requirements
Here, the formal modification brought about by the deletion of the claims is allowed. For example, before modification, claim 3 was subordinate to claim 1 or claim 2, while claim 4 was subordinate to claim 3. If claim 3 is deleted during the modification, it is allowed to modify the original claim 4 into two claims respectively subordinate to claim 1 and claim 2.
(B) the narrowing of the scope of protection of the claims
First of all, narrowing the scope of protection mentioned here is to further define the technical features of the invention, and the modification of adding new technical features is not allowed here, although it also belongs to the scope of protection of narrowing the claims. For example, the following modifications are allowed:
1. Delete one or more optional items, for example, replace "one element selected from fluorine, chlorine and bromine" with "one element selected from fluorine or chlorine".
2. Change from the upper concept to the lower concept.
3. Reduce the cited items in multiple cited claims.
Secondly, the narrowing of the protection scope of the claims should not change the industrial application scope and the technical problems to be solved. For example, regarding the invention of "a lock that can be operated in a dark environment because it is provided with an illuminating lamp", the modification of "the illuminating lamp is limited to an LED to reduce battery consumption" was made. Although the concept of "lighting lamp" is changed from the upper layer to the lower layer (LED), the technical problem to be solved (from "working in dark conditions" to "reducing battery consumption") has changed, so it does not belong to the shrink protection mentioned here.
In addition, in order to get the approval of the modification, the invention described in the modified claim must also meet the conditions of independent license, otherwise the new reason for refusing authorization after modification will delay the examination process, so the modification that does not meet the licensing conditions will be prohibited because it cannot be authorized, and the application may be rejected directly.
(3) Correcting obvious mistakes
Throughout the claims, specifications and drawings, obvious errors that can be confirmed by those skilled in the art are allowed to be corrected, such as obvious clerical errors in the input process.
(4) Description that cannot be explained clearly
For example, change the ambiguous expression into a clear and unique expression. In response to the notice of reasons for the final rejection, only the unclear description put forward by the examiner can be modified, while the modification carried out at the same time as the re-examination request and authorized modification has no such restriction, and can be modified if the applicant and the patentee think it necessary.
The above-mentioned restrictions on the modification of the final notice of the reasons for rejection are all aimed at promoting the review process and are not necessary elements for patentability. Therefore, if the modification that violates the above restrictions is also recognized and authorized by the examiner, then the modification that violates the restrictions cannot be the reason for the invalidation of the patent right.
Correction of translation errors
There are differences between the original text in PCT application and the translation of Japanese patent claim and specification submitted to Japan Patent Office. As long as it is allowed to be modified in a specific period, it is allowed to be modified into the same translation as the original. Only after the application is submitted, this system is very useful for finding mistakes in translation into Japanese. The correction of translation errors must be within the original text of the PCT application, which is different from the general rule that corrections must be within the scope recorded in the submitted original application documents. In other words, the basis of translation error correction is the original text of the PCT international application rather than the original translation submitted when entering the national phase.
In addition, it is very important that the correction of translation errors must also meet the limitations of revision in different periods. Therefore, even if translation errors are found, they may not be recognized because they are beyond the scope of modification allowed during the period. In other words, the revision of translation errors is not a panacea to save those PCT international applications with poor translation quality. Therefore, the author hopes that the quality of Japanese translation can attract enough attention from foreign applicants who intend to enter the Japanese national phase.