Patent Examination in China

Over the past few years, China has quickly grown to be an intellectual property powerhouse.  In 2016 alone, more than 1.3 million patent applications were filed in China, double the number of patents filed in the U.S.
The examination of Chinese invention patent applications follows similar rules as the U.S. examination process.  For example, the invention patent application is examined based on its novelty (similar to U.S.C 102) and inventiveness (similar to U.S.C. 103).  However, there are noticeable differences from the U.S. patent examination.  For example, the requirement for patent eligible subject matter is much looser.
The other noticeable difference between patent examination in China from the U.S. is that the Chinese Examiners frequently reject missing features in a claim based on common knowledge, often without providing sufficient explanation or support.
In fact, the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines require that the Examiner’s rejection based on common knowledge should be conclusive.  The Guidelines even list the form of evidence (textbook, technical handbook, and technical dictionary) that can be counted as evidence for common knowledge.  Unfortunately, Examiners, and sometimes even the Reexamination Board (similar to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the U.S.) fail to follow the strict requirement.  One way to respond to such a rejection is to request that the Examiner provide evidence or explanation to support the common knowledge assertion.  However, a response to an Office action without amending or further limiting the claimed scope may increase the likelihood of subsequent final rejection.
Our extensive experience in managing Chinese prosecution, including many Re-examinations before the Board, has identified several approaches that can effectively overcome a rejection based on common knowledge.
One approach is to argue that the teaching in one of the cited references conflicts with the common knowledge assertion.  This often requires digging deep into the prior art.  The higher the number of references, the more challenging it can be to find the magic bullet.
In another situation where all the procedures of a method were disclosed in the prior art, except not under the claimed condition.  The Examiner asserted that the missing condition was common knowledge.  We successfully overcame the rejection before the Board by emphasizing the advantages of the disclosed method over the prior art.  For example, by implementing the procedures under the disclosed condition, adverse effect were prevented, while the prior art could only mitigate the adverse effect.
 

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more