[IP Practice Online] Abductive Reasoning as an Axis of Logic and Thought in Patent Prosecution Practice—Focusing on Chemical Inventions (Patent Attorney Masanori Tomatsuri)
更新日：17 時間前
Article information
Article type: Lectures and videos
Category: Patents
Topics: Inventive step, Support requirement, Creators and inventors, Patent drafting and translation
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-12-09 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[IP Practice Online] Abductive Reasoning as an Axis of Logic and Thought in Patent Prosecution Practice—Focusing on Chemical Inventions (Patent Attorney Masanori Tomatsuri)
In addition to “deduction” and “induction,” logical reasoning includes “abductive reasoning” (abduction).
1. Inventors' materials often state objective facts but omit the “unspoken essentials,” such as why a particular configuration was chosen, why other configurations do not work, the difficulties encountered, and the mechanism by which effects arise.
Use abduction when reviewing inventors' materials, reasoning about questions such as “Why is this statement included?” and “Why is this point not discussed?”
2. If the causal relationships described in the inventor's materials seem “too neat,” prepare questions based on the hypothesis that the explanation was constructed after the fact and that there may actually have been trial and error or unexpected results.
3. In interviewing the inventor, build a relationship of trust, because you will be playing the role of “devil's advocate.”
4. When drafting a specification (especially for a chemical invention), stating the mechanism definitively risks rejection for lack of inventive step on the ground that the result “could readily have been predicted.” An effective writing approach is therefore deliberately to introduce a “pause” in the logic, along the lines of: “Surprisingly, this effect was obtained, but the mechanism has not been fully elucidated. However, the following is conjectured.”
Setting a lower hurdle for the problem addressed by the invention (for example, “rapid action ‘or’ high strength,” or a more relaxed threshold for an acceptable result) increases the possibility of obtaining broader protection without violating the support requirement.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The source repeats the word interview in item 3. The duplicate is treated as a typographical repetition in English, with the substance of the sentence preserved.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
