Circumstances in which invention patents are rejected

Circumstances in which an invention patent is rejected When an invention patent enters substantive examination, the circumstances in which it should be rejected refer to: 1. The application does not comply with the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law (Article 2, Paragraph 1: Invention refers to a new technical solution proposed for a product, method or improvement thereof). 2. The application falls within the provisions of Articles 5 and 25 of the Patent Law, or does not comply with Article 22 of the Patent Law, Article 13, Paragraph 1, Article 20, Paragraph 1, and 20 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law. The provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 1, or the patent right cannot be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Patent Law. 1. In compliance with Article 5 of the Patent Law: No Patent Rights will be granted for inventions and creations that violate national laws, social ethics or harm public interests; 2. In compliance with Article 25 of the Patent Law: no patent rights will be granted for the following items: 1) Scientific discoveries; 2) Rules and methods of intellectual activities; 3) Diagnosis and treatment methods of diseases; 4) Animal and plant varieties (“the production methods of their products can be patented”); 5) Products obtained by atomic nuclei transformation methods Substance; 3. Does not comply with Article 22 of the Patent Law: inventions and Utility Models for which patent rights are granted must possess novelty, creativity and practicality; 4. Does not comply with Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law: Same Only one patent can be granted for an invention-creation; 5. It does not comply with Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law: the claim should describe the technical features of the invention or utility model, and clearly and briefly state the scope of protection sought; 6. It does not comply with Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law: independent claims should reflect the technical solution of the invention or utility model as a whole and record the necessary technical features to solve the technical problem; 7. It does not comply with Article 9 of the Patent Law. Article 26 stipulates that “if two or more applicants apply for patents for the same invention and creation respectively, the patent right shall be awarded to the person who applies first. 3. The application does not comply with paragraphs 3, 4 or 3 of Article 26 of the Patent Law. The provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 11: 1. Paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Patent Law: The description shall give a clear and complete description of the invention or utility model, which shall be subject to the ability of a skilled person in the relevant technical field to realize it; when necessary , there should be drawings. The abstract should briefly describe the technical points of the invention or utility model; 2. Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law: The claims should be based on the description and explain the scope of patent protection required; 3. Patent Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Law: An application for a patent for an invention or utility model shall be limited to one invention or utility model. Two or more inventions or utility models belonging to a general inventive concept may be filed as one application. 4. The amendment of the application does not comply with the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law or the provisions of Article 43, Paragraph 1, of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law: 1. Article 33 of the Patent Law stipulates: The applicant may Patent application documents shall be modified, but modifications to invention and utility model patent application documents shall not exceed the scope recorded in the original description and claims, and modifications to design patent application documents shall not exceed the scope represented by the original pictures or photographs; 2. Patent Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Implementing Rules of the Law stipulates: A divisional application filed in accordance with Article 42 of these Rules may retain the original filing date, and if it enjoys priority, the priority date may be retained, but it shall not exceed the scope of disclosure of the original application.