上次小编所写的一篇评测专利说明书机器翻译效果的文章（https://bbs.mysipo.com/thread-1108150-1-1.html），收获了思博帖友的一波关注和肯定，更有热心帖友留言鉴定咱写的都是干货！小编深受激励
，决定再接再厉，此次出手评测专利审查意见通知书机器翻译效果，请各位帖友继续指正，欢迎继续留言、点赞、拍砖！
，决定再接再厉，此次出手评测专利审查意见通知书机器翻译效果，请各位帖友继续指正，欢迎继续留言、点赞、拍砖！上次小编选择了四款颇具代表性的机器翻译引擎，分别是谷歌翻译、百度翻译、有道翻译和知识产权语言服务网，虽然评测效果孰强孰弱十分明显，不过有帖友留言希望能同时加上其他机器翻译，群众的呼唤就是小编的动力，此次小编冒着手软的风险，一次性评测了六款机器翻译引擎！！
一、测评说明
参评机器翻译引擎：
前四款依然是上次选择的机翻引擎，此次小编加上了WIPO机翻和Global Dossier这两款圈内重量级神器。
1、谷歌翻译（https://translate.google.cn/）——谷歌老大，很多涉外专代人的常用机翻工具
2、百度翻译（https://fanyi.baidu.com）——国内搜索王牌，据说机翻水准不如谷歌？
3、有道翻译（https://fanyi.youdao.com/）——有道词典起家，翻译圈挺火
4、知识产权语言服务网（http://www.iplanguage.com/）——专利垂直领域机器翻译新锐，此次选取的是OA专用机翻引擎
5、WIPOTranslate（https://patentscope.wipo.int/translate/translate.jsf）——WIPO开发的专利垂直领域机器翻译，国际权威
6、Global Dossier——由IP五局合作推出，可提供OA机翻译文，深受专利圈欢迎
前四款不多说了，下面简单介绍一下WIPO机翻和Global Dossier。
首先WIPO Translate相信涉外专利工作者一定都了解，其主要利用人工翻译的专利标题和摘要语料库，以及对齐的专利说明书和权利要求书训练而成，采用神经网络机器翻译引擎，专用于专利文档。目前每天可免费翻译2000字符。
Global Dossier则是IP五局于2012年讨论发起，并于2014年正式推出的一项服务，可从五局网站访问，可提供专利同族数据、审查信息、发文信息、费用信息等，就审查信息而言，可同时提供审查意见通知书的机翻译文下载服务。
不过，需要特别说明的是，此次依然没有EPO机翻，原因如下：虽然EPO机翻是EPO和Google携手打造，算得上是强强联合，但其官网明确说明“仅针对Espacenet、European Publication Server和Global Patent Index的用户提供”。即，并没有任何开放的接口可以提供用户的按需机器翻译，而只能针对数据库中检索出的专利进行在线机翻，一句话：很遗憾！EPO机翻无法提供OA文件翻译。
测评文件：
此次测评主要针对中文专利审查意见通知书即OA文件进行。众所周知，OA文件是专利局审查员在进行发明专利实质审查后发出的审查意见通知书，由标准表格（通常又称作通知书扉页）和审查意见通知书正文两部分组成。在这六款引擎中，仅知识产权语言服务网和Global Dossier支持提供OA全文档的翻译，即包括标准表格和OA正文均可保留格式提供译文。为了方便对比，此次仅选取OA正文进行翻译评测。
特别说明：2017年谷歌发布了开源的神经网络机器翻译引擎，此后，各机器翻译引擎纷纷引入神经网络机器翻译技术，与传统的基于统计或基于规则的机器翻译引擎相比，神经网络机器翻译引擎翻译效果更好。故，此次测评选择的都是2017年之后发出的审查意见通知书。
打分说明：
A.标记橙色表示译文质量有问题之处，标记蓝色表示译文质量优秀之处。
B.默认每处实质性错误扣2分，如术语选择等问题较轻则扣1分；同类错误仅扣一次分。
C.最终综合分，仅代表机器翻译质量高低，不代表译文完美程度，即，得10分并不代表译文完美。
此外，在专利代理行业内，《中国专利法》、《专利审查指南》等中国专利法规、规章的官方英文译文版本是公认的权威译文，这些译文中的专有术语等也被行业所认可。故，此次测评主要以此类译文为标准译法进行打分。
二、测评结果
以下小编选取了OA正文中常见的一些语句进行翻译评测。
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文1 | 经审查，现给出如下审查意见。 | |||||
译文1 | After review, the following review opinions are now given. | After examination, the following opinions are given. | After examination, give the following examination opinion now. | Upon examination, the following examination opinions are now provided. | Review, which now gives examination opinions as follows. | Upon review, the following review comments are now given. |
评语 | 综合得分：8分：1术语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：8分：1语法 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：6分：2语法 | 综合得分：6分：2术语 |
这句话往往会出现在审查意见开篇，主要涉及“审查”“审查意见”的译法，在官方译文中，“审查意见”对应的译文是“examination opinion”。可以看出，本句“百度”和“知识产权语言服务网”的译文都较标准，不知道什么原因，WIPO译文的句子结构完全不在线
，Global Dossier则主要是术语不符合常规译法。
，Global Dossier则主要是术语不符合常规译法。| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文2 | 1、权利要求13要求保护一种用户设备，对比文件1(CN104283582A）公开了一种确定探测参考信号跳频图案方法，并具体公开了如下技术特征（参见说明书第5-16段，图1）: | |||||
译文2 | 1. Claim 13 claims to protect a user equipment. Comparative Document 1 (CN104283582A) discloses a method for determining sounding reference signal frequency hopping patterns, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 5-16 of the specification, Figure 1) : | 1. A user equipment is claimed in claim 13. The reference document 1 (cn104283582a) discloses a method for determining the frequency hopping pattern of the detection reference signal, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 5-16 of the description, Fig. 1) | 1. Claim 13 requires the protection of a user's equipment. Comparison document 1(CN104283582A) discloses a method to determine the frequency bouncing pattern of the detection reference signal, and specifically discloses the following technical characteristics (see the specification paragraphs 5-16, Figure 1) : | 1. Claim 13 sets forth a user equipment. D1 (CN 104283582 A) discloses a method for determining a frequency hopping pattern of a sounding reference signal, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see the description, paragraphs [0005]-[0016], and figure 1): | Claim 13 sets forth a user equipment. Reference document 1 (CN104283582A) discloses a method for determining a frequency hopping pattern of a sounding reference signal, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see description, paragraphs 5 -16, and fig. 1): | 1. A us equipment as claimed in claim 13，a method for determine a frequency hopping pattern of a sounding reference signal is disclose in comparative document 1 (CN 104283582 A), and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 5-16 of the specification, Figure 1): |
评语 | 综合得分：7分：2术语1表述 | 综合得分：8分：1术语1大小写 | 综合得分：5分：6术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：5分：3语法2术语 |
本句是结合对比文件对某一条权利要求的评述，主要涉及技术性描述，涉及的专利词汇主要有：对比文件： reference document，技术特征：technical feature。此外，在进行评述时，审查员往往会指出引用的对比文件中最接近技术描述所出现的位置，涉及“说明书”，对应译文是“description”，之所以是“description”而非“specification”是因为，根据欧美审查法规，“specification”往往是指包括了说明书“description”、附图、权利要求书等所有申请文件在内的文件，此处描述的显然仅仅是其中的说明书“description”部分。
就本句而言，WIPO翻译和知识产权语言服务网在专利特定术语的选取方面表现最优，与之对比，谷歌、百度、有道对词语的选择都不够专业，而Global Dossier再次翻车，测到这里，小编已经开始对专利圈的神器Global Dossier略略失望了。。。
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文3 | 该权利要求要求保护的技术方案与对比文件1相比，其区别特征为： 该权利要求通过用户设备发送模块来完成参考信号跳频配置。 | |||||
译文3 | Compared with Comparative Document 1, the technical solution claimed by this claim has the following distinguishing features: The claim uses the user equipment sending module to complete the reference signal frequency hopping configuration. | Compared with the reference document 1, the technical solution of the claim has the distinctive feature that the claim completes the frequency hopping configuration of the reference signal through the user equipment transmission module. | Compared with comparison document 1, the technical scheme for the protection of the claim is distinguished by the following characteristics: the claim requires the completion of the reference signal frequency hopping configuration through the sending module of the user's equipment. | The technical solution of the claim differs from Reference document 1 in that: the claim completes the reference signal frequency hopping configuration by a user equipment sending module. | Compared with D1, the technical solution set forth in claim 1 differs from D1 in that: the claims complete reference signal frequency hopping configuration by means of a user equipment sending module. | The claimed solution is distinguished from Comparative Document 1 in that the claim fulfills the reference signal frequency hopping configuration by means of the user equipment transmission module. |
评语 | 综合得分：8分：1术语1大小写 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：7分：2术语1表述 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 |
本句是对区别技术特征的识别，主要涉及的专利特色词汇有：区别特征：distinguishing feature，技术方案：technical solution，表现最优者依然是知识产权语言服务网和WIPO翻译，WIPO更是把对比文件直接翻译成D1，更显地道，点个赞！
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文4 | 因此， 在对比文件1的基础上结合本领域的惯用手段从而得到该权利要求所要求保护的技术方案对本领域技术人员来说是显而易见的。 | |||||
译文4 | Therefore, it is obvious to those skilled in the art to obtain the technical solution claimed by the claims by combining the conventional means in the field on the basis of the reference document 1. | Therefore, it is obvious for those skilled in the art to obtain the technical solution claimed by the claim based on the reference document 1 and the conventional means in the art. | Therefore, it is obvious to the technician in the field that the technical solution to obtain the protection of the claim is based on the comparison of document 1 with the conventional means in the field. | Therefore, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed technical solution of said claim on the basis of D1 combined with customary means in the art. | Therefore, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to arrive at the technical solution of claim 1 by combining D1 and common means in the art. | Accordingly, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art from a consideration of Comparative Document 1 in conjunction with conventional means in the art to obtain the claimed subject matter. |
评语 | 综合得分：8分：2术语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：5分：3术语2表述 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：6分：4术语 |
相信这句话是专利代理师们最不愿意看到的，因为这往往意味着专利的创造性要被否定了。这句话主要涉及的专利特色词汇有：显而易见的：obvious，惯用手段：customary means，本领域：the art。得术语者得天下，知识产权语言服务网显然把专利特色术语准确性这一点拿捏得死死的
，WIPO本句表现其实也还好，其他机翻引擎就有点一言难尽了，尤其是Global Dossier，“技术方案”一词直接翻译成了“主题”，直接跑偏了。。。
，WIPO本句表现其实也还好，其他机翻引擎就有点一言难尽了，尤其是Global Dossier，“技术方案”一词直接翻译成了“主题”，直接跑偏了。。。| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文5 | 因此，该权利要求所要求保护的技术方案不具备突出的实质性特点和显著的进步，不具有专利法第22条第3款规定的创造性。 | |||||
译文5 | Therefore, the technical solution claimed by the claim does not have outstanding substantive features and significant progress, and does not have the inventive step provided in Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law. | Therefore, the technical scheme claimed in the claim does not possess prominent substantive features and significant progress, and does not possess the inventiveness as stipulated in article 22.3 of the patent law. | Therefore, the technical solution under the protection of the claim does not possess outstanding substantive characteristics and significant progress and does not possess the creativity provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law. | Hence, the technical solution of the claim neither has prominent substantive features nor represents notable progress, and does not involve an inventive step as provided in Article 22. 3 of the Patent Law. | Therefore, the technical solutions set forth in the claims do not involve prominent substantive features and significant advances and do not involve an inventive step under 35 USC § 22, paragraph 3. | Accordingly, the technical solution as claimed in this claim does not possess the outstanding substantive characteristics and remarkable progress, and does not possess the creativity provided for in article 22, paragraph 3, of the Patent Law. |
评语 | 综合得分：6分，4术语 | 综合得分：6分，4术语 | 综合得分：7分，3术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：7分，1术语1错译 | 综合得分：7分，3术语 |
本句是典型的不具备创造性的否定性结论表述，主要涉及的词汇如下：突出的实质性特点：prominent substantive features，显著的进步：notableprogress，具有创造性：involve an inventive step。从结果看，本句翻译结果，除了知识产权语言服务网以外，其他引擎的术语翻译都不完全符合专利用语，例如“创造性”一词的表述，出现了“inventiveness”、“creativity”等译法。WIPO机翻则直接把专利法翻译成了美国法典（USC），你真的不是USA派来的猴子吗？
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文6 | 因此，在其引用的权利要求不具备创造性的基础上，上述权利要求也不具备专利法第22条第3款规定的创造性。 | |||||
译文6 | Therefore, on the basis that the cited claims do not possess the inventive step, the above-mentioned claims also do not possess the inventive step stipulated in Article 22(3) of the Patent Law. | Therefore, on the basis that the cited claim possesses no inventiveness, the above claim possesses no inventiveness under the provision of paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Chinese patent law. | Therefore, on the basis that the claims cited are not creative, the claims mentioned above are not creative as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law. | Hence, on the basis that the claim referred to does not involve an inventive step, the above-mentioned claim which does not involve an inventive step as provided in Article 22. 3 of the Patent Law. | Therefore, insofar as the claims referred to thereby do not involve an inventive step, the above claims also do not involve an inventive step under 35 USC § 22, paragraph 3. | Therefore, to the extent that the claims cited therein are not inventive, such claims are also not inventive under article 22, paragraph 3, of the Patent Law. |
评语 | 综合得分：8分：2术语 | 综合得分：7分：3术语 | 综合得分：7分：3术语 | 综合得分：9分：1表述 | 综合得分：8分：1错译 | 综合得分：8分：2术语 |
除了其他术语外，本句新出现的专业词汇是：引用：refer to。就本句而言，专利垂直领域的机器翻译——知识产权语言服务网和WIPO翻译，用词都还是比较准确的，不过，WIPO机翻再次犯了硬性错误，把“专利法”翻译成了美国法典，直接翻译成“patent law”不香吗？
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文7 | 因此，该权利要求涵盖了不能解决本发明要解决的技术问题的技术方案，得不到说明书的支持，不符合专利法第二十六条第四款的规定。 | |||||
译文7 | Therefore, the claim covers a technical solution that cannot solve the technical problem to be solved by the present invention, is not supported by the specification, and does not comply with the provisions of Article 26, paragraph 4 of the Patent Law. | Therefore, the claim covers the technical solution which can not solve the technical problem to be solved by the invention, is not supported by the description, and is not in conformity with the provision of paragraph 4, Article 26 of the Chinese patent law. | Therefore, the claim covers a technical solution that cannot solve the technical problem to be solved by the invention, is not supported by the specification, and does not conform to paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law. | Therefore the claims cover technical solutions that do not solve the technical problem to be solved by the present invention, are not supported by the description, and do not comply with the provisions of Article 26. 4 of the Patent Law. | Therefore, the claims encompass the technical solutions that cannot solve the technical problem to be solved by the present invention, are not supported by the description, and do not comply with the provisions of the second sixteen fourth clauses of the patent law. | Therefore, the claims cover a technical solution that cannot solve the technical problem to be solved by the present invention, without the support of the specification, and does not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent La飞可 |
评语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：8分：1错译 | 综合得分：8分：1术语1错译 |
这是一条因不符合A26.4而缺乏创造性的否定性结论，本句新涉及的表述是：说明书的支持：supported by the description。知识产权语言服务网表现依然亮眼，同时本句百度翻译也相当不错。此次WIPO终于把“专利法”翻译成了“patent law”，不容易啊！不过，GlobalDossier是咋回事儿？译文里直接出现汉字了！
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文8 | 申请人对申请文件的修改应当符合专利法第三十三条的规定，不得超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围。 | |||||
译文8 | The applicant's amendments to the application documents shall comply with the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law, and shall not exceed the scope of the original specification and claims. | The applicant's amendment to the application document shall comply with the provisions of Article 33 of the patent law, and shall not go beyond the scope of the original description and claims. | The amendment made by the applicant to the application documents shall conform to the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law and shall not go beyond the scope contained in the original specification and claims. | The amendments made to the application documents by the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Article 33, that is to say, the amendments may not go beyond the scope of disclosure contained in the initial description and claims. | Applicant 's modifications to the application file should comply with the provisions of thirty-three of the patent laws and do not exceed the scope of the original specification and the claims. | The applicantschar(39) amendments to the application documents shall comply 飞vith Article 33 of the Patent Law, and shall not exceed the scope contained in the original specification and claims. |
评语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：9分：1术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：8分：2术语 | 综合得分：7分：2错译1术语 |
本句是审查员对于修改不得超范围的提示性语句，《审查指南》里甚至有类似原句：修改：amendment，不得超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围： may not go beyond the scope of the disclosure contained in theinitial description and claims。各个机翻引擎翻译效果都不错，唯一例外的是Global Dossier，译文中再次出现疑似乱码。
| 谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
原文9 | 申请人应按照本通知书提出的审查意见对申请文件进行修改，克服所存在的缺陷。 | |||||
译文9 | The applicant shall revise the application documents in accordance with the review opinions put forward in this notice to overcome the existing deficiencies. | The applicant shall modify the application documents in accordance with the review opinions put forward in this notice to overcome the existing defects. | The applicant shall amend the application documents in accordance with the review opinions put forward in this notice to overcome the existing defects. | The applicant shall amend the application documents in accordance with the examination opinions provided by the office action to overcome the defects. | Applicant should modify the application file according to the review opinions set forth in this specification to overcome the defects present. | The Applicant shall, in accordance with the examination opinion presented in this Notice, make modifications to the application document to overcome the drawbacks that exist. |
评语 | 综合得分：6分：4术语 | 综合得分：7分：3术语 | 综合得分：8分：2术语 | 综合得分：10分 | 综合得分：7分：3术语 | 综合得分：7分：3术语 |
这句话一般是审查员在阐明完审查意见之后，提示申请人可以针对审查意见对申请文件进行修改，涉及词汇是：修改：amend，缺陷：defect。对于“通知书”一词的翻译，其实翻译成“notice”也是可以接受的，不过知识产权语言服务网亮出了硬核武器，直接翻译成了更加地道的“office action”，因为小编在各种官方译文中看到，一般出现“审查意见通知书”才会对应翻译成“office action”，而此处知识产权语言服务网自动将简写的“通知书”也翻译成了“office action”，手动点赞！
三、测评结论
根据测评，每款机翻引擎的翻译表现总结如下：
谷歌 | 百度 | 有道 | 知识产权语言服务网 | WIPO | Global Dossier | |
总体表现 | 平均分7.7，OA翻译表现中等，主要问题是术语等翻译专业性方面还不够 | 平均分8.2，从平均分看，百度的OA翻译效果优于谷歌，还有一句话得了10分，为百度点个赞 | 平均分7.2，整体表现不如百度谷歌，翻译质量也时好时坏，不过也没有非常出格的翻译错误 | 平均分9.9，OA翻译专业性表现NO.1  ，翻译水平也最稳定，国内首家OA专用机翻引擎值得一试 | 平均分8.1，其实WIPO翻译整体表现还算可圈可点，有两句话甚至还得了10分，专业性方面表现也不俗，但是偶有翻车很丢分啊 | 平均分7，Global Dossier的表现只能用“不稳定”三个字来形容，此外译文中出现乱码是硬伤  |
经过前后这两次评测，小编自己也感觉收获很多，测评结果颠覆了认知啊，有木有！
机器翻译真的越是国际大牌越厉害吗？不测不知道，一测真的吓一跳！
机器翻译真的越是国际大牌越厉害吗？不测不知道，一测真的吓一跳！结果出炉！
首先，在谷歌、百度、有道、知识产权语言服务网、WIPO translate、Global Dossier六款机器翻译引擎中，翻译审查意见通知书效果最好的是——知识产权语言服务网！手动撒花✿✿ヽ(°▽°)ノ✿祝贺祝贺！
其次，咱China的百度翻译真的不比谷歌翻译差啊，明明比谷歌翻译效果还好嘞！！小编自己深刻检讨！
大家还有其他好用的审查意见通知书翻译引擎吗？欢迎帖友们留言、推荐哟