PAJ ニュース第 38 号タイトル

1. Results of the Questionnaire Survey on PAJ
The National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (NCIPI),
with the aim of further improving the quality of Patent Abstracts of Japan (PAJ),
conducted a questionnaire survey targeting 95 intellectual property offices (orrelated organizations) that have received PAJ. Thank you very much for yourcooperation.
The summary of the survey results is shown below.
○ Survey period
August to September 2005
○ Survey targets
Recipients of PAJ (paten offices, libraries, and other public agencies overseas)

1Survey results(1) Response rate
The NCIPI sent the questionnaire to 95 intellectual property offices (or relatedorganizations), and obtained responses from 16 offices. The response rate was17%.
(2) Questions concerning English translations of PAJ*( ) is figure of response
In response to the question “Do you find any incorrect use of the technicalterminology translations in PAJ?”, 56%(9) offices chose “Almost none,” 25%(4)offices “Occasionally,” 19%(3) offices “Sometimes,” and “Frequently” was notselected (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Incorrect use of technical terminology in PAJ

Sometimes
19％（3）
Almost none
Occasionally56％（9）

25％（4）In response to the questions “Do you find any clumsiness in the English
expression translations in PAJ?”, 67%(10) offices chose “Almost none,” 13%(2)offices “Occasionally,” 20%(3) offices “Sometimes,” and “Frequently” was notselected (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Clumsy English expressions in PAJ

Sometimes
20％（3）
Occasionally13％（2）

Almost none
67％（10）2In response to the question “Do you find any basic grammatical errors in theEnglish translations in PAJ?”, 60%(9) offices chose “Almost none,” 13%(2)offices chose “Occasionally,” 27%(4) offices “Sometimes,” and “Frequently” wasnot selected (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Basic grammatical errors in PAJ

Sometimes
27％（4）
Almost none
Occasionally60％（9）

13％（2）In response to the question as to the evaluation of PAJ, almost all respondent
offices found them to be useful (see Figure 4). The majority regarded PAJ as
being at the same level as similar services provided by other countries (seeFigure 5).

Figure 5 Comparison of similar servicesof other foreign countries

Figure 4 Convenience of PAJ

Other6％（1）OtherBetter

13％（2）

25％（4）

UsefulSame

94％（15）62％（10）3

In response to the question “What improvements would you like to see in
PAJ in the future?”, we have received the users’ requests which included“Provision on English translation for the whole patent publications”, “Indicationon the legal status of patent applications”, “Indication on working example ofthe patent inventions” and so on. However, we have already provided some of
the information with users on the IPDL. Please refer to the followinginstruction.
(Screen of PAJ search" in IPDL)

Please access the following URL;
http://www.ipdl.ncipi.go.jp/homepg_e.ipdl
And please enter “PAJ search”.

Full text of Published
Application
Legal status information(automatically translated)

IPDL has “the legal status information” and “automatic Translation function”.
You can inspect legal status, for example, whether examination is requested or not.
(These legal status information are not input in the ordinal PAJ CD-ROM.)If you click “DETAIL”, the original Japanese publication of displayed PAJ isautomatically translated in English.

The text part of the original publication istranslated.
4

Copy of Questionnaire

Questionnaire

Organization’s name:
Section:
Person in charge:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:Q1: Frequency of Providing PAJ and Contents of PAJ(1) Frequencya） Satisfied with PAJ being provided on a monthly basisb） PAJ should be offered more frequently**How often? ()c) Other ()(2) Content of PAJa) Satisfied with the existing contentb) Not satisfied with the existing contentc) Other ()(3) If you choose “b)” in (2), please reply following question.
Which points are you not satisfied with?
a)

The representative drawings are unsuitableb)

The outline of Japanese patent application is not expressed suitablyc)

Other ()

(4) If you have any request regarding the contents of PAJ, please feel free to write to us.
(Q2:)

Quality of English translation in PAJ(1) Do you find any incorrect use of the technical terminology translations in PAJ?
a)

Almost noneb)

Occasionallyc)

Sometimesd)

Frequently5e)Other ()

(2) Do you find any clumsiness in the English expression translations in PAJ?
a)

Almost noneb)

Occasionallyc)

Sometimesd)

Frequentlye)

Other ()

(3) Do you find any basic grammatical errors in the English translations in PAJ?

Q3:a)

Almost noneb)

Occasionallyc)

Sometimesd)

Frequentlye)

Other ()

Evaluation of PAJ(1) Do you find it to be a useful resource?
a)

Yesb)

Noc)

Other ()

(2) How do you rate PAJ in comparison with similar services of other foreign countries?

Q4:a)

Betterb)

Samec)

Worsed)Other ()

What improvements would you like to see in PAJ in the future?
()----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you for your cooperation. Should you have any questions concerning this form, pleasefeel free to contact us.
The information contained in this questionnaire will be used by NCIPI to improve PAJ andPAJ-related products and services and will not be released to another party.

6

2. PAJ Issuance Schedule
As of November, 2005

[2005]PAJ

PAJ index

Date ofpublication ofPAJ

Serialnumberfor theyear

Total
serialnumberNumber ofPAJ stored

Coverage

Jan. 31 (Mon.)

2005-1

121

30,0002004-1[097]/2004-12[120]Feb. 28 (Mon.)

2005-212232,000

2005-3

123

27,5002005-4124

27,5002005-5125

24,5002005-6126

35,0002005-7127

30,9002005-8128

19,3002005-9129

39,4002005-10130

27,9002005-11131

25,3002005-12

132

40,100Jan. 31 (Tue.)

2006-1

133

34,400Feb. 28 (Tue.)

2006-2

134

24,400Mar. 31 (Thu.)
Apr. 28 (Thu.)
May 31 (Tue.)Jun. 30 (Thu.)
Jul. 29 (Fri.)
Aug. 31 (Wed.)
Sep. 30 (Fri.)
Oct. 31 (Mon.)
Nov. 30 (Wed.)
Dec. 28 (Wed.)

2005-1[121]/2005-3[123]2005-1[121]/2005-6[126]2005-1[121]/2005-9[129][2006]

7

2005-1[121]/2005-12[132]