Filing a US patent application and worried about claim translation?

A recent US patent filing for a Korean applicant came together through a three-way collaboration — a Korean patent attorney reviewing the invention and rights strategy, this office translating the specification and preparing supporting documents, and a US patent attorney handling final review and USPTO filing. Translating the specification is only one piece of a US filing — applicant/inventor information, Entity Status, the power of attorney and inventor declaration, prior-art disclosure (IDS), and consistency between the Korean and US filings all need to be checked together.

Claim translation: where the wording changes the scope

A patent claim isn't ordinary technical translation — the claim defines the invention's legal scope, so its translation demands particular care. A US claim has three parts: the preamble (names the invention's type/purpose), the transitional phrase (connects the preamble to the body and sets whether the claim is open or closed), and the body (the elements and their relationships).

The transitional phrase matters most: "comprising" is open-ended — it covers the listed elements plus any unlisted ones — and is the standard choice for the broadest claim scope. "Consisting of" is closed — it excludes anything not listed — and narrows the claim. "Consisting essentially of" falls in between, allowing additions that don't materially affect the invention's basic characteristics. A Korean claim's "~로 이루어지는" translated literally as "consisting of" can unintentionally narrow the scope the applicant meant to claim.

Other claim-translation checks: no dropped elements, correct independent/dependent claim citation relationships, consistent terminology for the same element throughout, correct article and singular/plural usage (a new element vs. a previously introduced one has to read unambiguously), and consistency between the specification, claims, and drawing reference numbers.

Entity Status: why it changes your USPTO fees

USPTO official fees scale with the applicant's Entity Status — Large Entity pays standard fees, Small Entity gets a 60% discount, and Micro Entity gets an 80% discount. Micro Entity status requires meeting several conditions together: qualifying as a Small Entity, not exceeding the statutory limit on prior US patent filings, the applicant's and inventors' prior-year gross income not exceeding the USPTO's income cap (USD 251,190 per person, effective September 9, 2025 — this figure changes periodically), and not having assigned (or being obligated to assign) rights to anyone exceeding that income cap. Co-inventors, corporate applicants, assignees, or licensees each need their own eligibility checked.

IDS: the prior-art disclosure that isn't optional

The IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) is the procedure for submitting to the USPTO any prior patents, patent applications, or non-patent literature that could bear on patentability. Applicants have a duty to disclose material information they're aware of — before and after filing, check for: prior art cited by the Korean or a foreign patent office, related patent literature the applicant already knows of, relevant non-patent literature (papers, product materials), and any foreign-language prior art, which may need an English abstract or relevance summary for the US examiner. Timing matters too — filing an IDS later in prosecution can require an additional statement or fee, so gathering the material early is safer.

IDS isn't a paperwork formality — knowingly withholding material prior art with intent to deceive the USPTO can later support an inequitable conduct defense in US patent litigation, potentially rendering the entire patent unenforceable. If an applicant or inventor already knows of prior art, the safer course is to send it to the Korean and US patent attorneys for a disclosure-necessity review, rather than deciding on their own that it isn't material.

What this office handles

Specification and claim Korean-to-English translation, IDS reference abstract translation, checking every document and data point a US filing requires, and making sure the Korean-side filing record is accurately conveyed to the US patent attorney — the full scope of foreign-filing support outside the pure legal judgment calls a US patent attorney makes.