The State intellectual property Office decision on revising the guidelines for patent examination in

    (Released September 16, 2013, State intellectual property Office of the 67th since October 15, 2013), State intellectual property office to decide on the guidelines for patent examination as follows:

11th section of chapter II of part one, be revised as follows: 11.

According to the 22nd article of the patent law review In the preliminary review, the Inspector for a utility model patent application is clearly not novel review.

Reviewers can access related existing technology or subject to the application of information, review of the utility model patent application is clearly not novel.

Utility model may involve non-normal application, such as obvious copying an existing technology or duplicate content obviously substantially the same patent application reviewers according to retrieve access to documents or other means of information, review of the utility model patent application is clearly not novel.

    About new review in the light of the provisions of chapter III of part II of this guide.

Chapter II, part II, will be the first 13th section is revised as follows: 13.

According to Nineth of the patent law review Nineth of the patent law prescribed in the first paragraph, the same inventions can only be granted a patent.

Nineth of the patent law prescribed in the second paragraph, two or more applicants of patent applications for the same invention, patents are granted first to the person applying. In the preliminary review, the Inspector for utility model patent application review compliance with the provisions of patent law article Nineth.

Inspectors can access the same invention with the patent application or patent, utility model patent application is under review in accordance with the patent law provisions of Nineth.

    Processing of the same invention, reference 6th the provisions of chapter III of part II of this guide.

8th section of chapter III of part three, the first is revised as follows: 8.

Article 23rd according to patent law review In the preliminary review, the Inspector for 23rd appearance design patent application is obviously not in conformity with patent law review of the provisions of article.

Reviewers can access related existing design or subject to the application of information, review 23rd appearance design patent application is obviously not in conformity with patent law provisions of the first paragraph.

Designs may involve abnormal applications, such as obvious copying existing designs or duplicate content obviously substantially the same patent application reviewers according to retrieve access to documents or other means of information, review 23rd appearance design patent application is obviously not in conformity with patent law provisions of the first paragraph.

    The same or substantially the same review references fifth chapter of the relevant provisions of part IV of these guidelines.

11th section of part one, chapter four, be modified as follows: 11.

According to Nineth of the patent law review Nineth of the patent law prescribed in the first paragraph, the same inventions can only be granted a patent.

Nineth of the patent law prescribed in the second paragraph, two or more applicants of patent applications for the same invention, patents are granted first to the person applying. In the preliminary review, the Inspector for design patent applications review compliance with the provisions of patent law article Nineth.

    Reviewers can get the same design with the patent application or patent, design patent application review compliance with the provisions of patent law article Nineth. This decision as of October 15, 2013.