Chinese Patent System

The increasing submission of patent applications is a sign of the country’s innovativeness that is transforming China in to an innovation country by 2020 is causing a stir in the government and will make China a world leader in Science and technology by 2050. The present Science and Technology Development Plan of China recognizes the creation of indigenous inventiveness as a means to control in advancing China’s innovation capability and a factor in advancing China’s economic growth in the future. The patent system is plays a major role in the general process where the standard structure of the patent system is being criticized.


3 sets of amendments were carried out in the years 1992, 2000, and 2009 after the first patent law was implemented in 1984. The first amendment was an answer to external pressure to enhance patent protection, and the 2nd amendment was based on the requirements of the China for commitments to the World Trade Organization; The third amendment was encouraged by China’s ambition to further clarify its laws on patenting and the enforcement of judicial and administrative decisions while securing China’s interests in terms of national security. The end result is a patent system that comes closer to the system practiced in European countries, and to the United States patent system as well but maintains its uniqueness.
The last amendment in 2001 was a requirement from the World Trade Organization as obligated to China, The adoption of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and the synchronization of China’s patent system with International Standards. The first amendment of TRIPS is the computation of statutory damages and guaranteeing that state and nonstate enterprises obtain patent rights. After those two amendments, China had been consistent with its Patent system onward.


The latest amendment took place in 2009. This item is geared on the more transparent judicial decisions for judicial interpretation and enforcement. Other revisions were enforced too. Past versions require Chinese individuals and foreign invested companies registered in China to file the application in China, in case it had been completed in China before filing it in other countries but those applicants in China has to report to the State Intellectual Property Office for an examination before filing the patents in another foreign country.

American Patent System

History of American Patent System

The first president of the United States of America signed the bill which implemented the modern American Patent System. The intrinsic patent right of the inventor to gain from what he invented is put into law. In the past, it was the discretion of a monarch or a special act of legislature to grant this benefit to the inventor. The first grantee of such benefit was Samuel Hopkins who developed Potash derived from ash of burnt plant life used to make soap and other items.


Thomas Jefferson was the reviewer of this patent, Secretary of State; inventor of gadgets then passes them to the Secretary of war for his review and then signed by the attorney general and the final signature for the President Washington. The first year saw two more applications for patents which were later granted after due deliberation and examination, collection of signatures and implementation. Jefferson later realized that there is just too much work being done for the process of patent application. The very busy cabinet members’ time were just eaten up by the laborious process of deliberation for as little as four dollars. An American inventor could apply for a patent protection for their inventions for this amount under the provisions act of 1970.

The First American Patent Born

The Secretary of State was overwhelmed by the number of American inventors seeking to have their patents approved; so in 1793, the overwhelming work of patent examination was handed over to a State Department Clerk until the formation of the Patent office in 1802. As of today, more than five million patents were issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office to Americans and other nationals.


Before the Patent Act of July 4, 1836 was implemented, names and dates were issued to identify patents instead of numbers. Almost 10,000 patents were already in force by the Patent Office when it was caught on fire and destroyed a lot of original patent applications and their original documentations last December 1836. Utilizing private records, the office staff managed to restore and recover 2,845 patents. The remaining patents were then issued a number beginning with an X consequentially called the X-Patents. Henceforth, the first patent was assigned the patent X1. The non-recovered patents were canceled.

Patent Granted

Patent Three Remarkable Characteristics
Patent Laws of different countries vary greatly. Most countries and China demand that new inventions have to possess novelty, advancement and industrial applicability. Novelty means that before the date of application or priority day, the invention is not among the existing technology, i.e. it is not publicly known or used. Those that are opened in written form, in tape, in record, photographs, oral form or used, lose their novelty. Some countries adopt global novelty; some adopt national novelty; some have the notion of embracing the global scope as the standard while applying the national standard. Advancement also called creativity refers to that the invention at the time of application is more advanced than the existing technology and its degree is not so obvious to the ordinary professionals in that technological area. Applicability means that the inventions can be produced and used in industries.

Patent Types
The main parts of the Patent Law are two kinds: the occupational inventions accomplished from performing the company’s task or the inventions that are mainly achieved by utilizing the company’s material conditions, whose right of patent application belong to the company; no occupational inventions whose right of patent application belong to the inventors or designers. The United Kingdom had enacted the first Patent Law in 1474; the United Stated in 1790; France in 1791; Netherland in 1817 and Germany in 1877 had promulgated their own patent laws successively. In the world more than 150 countries and regions have their own patent system and the patent laws are gradually internationalized. For example, the Paris Convention taken effect in 1884, the Patent Cooperation Treaty signed in 1970, the International Patent Classification Agreement signed in 1971, the European Patent Convention signed in 1973, and the European Communities Patent Convention made in 1975, the Luxembourg Convention signed inn 1975 and the African Patent Organization signed in 1977 and so on.

Patent Accreditation
At present in various countries’ patent laws there are mainly three kinds of ways to grant patents as bellows:

1, it is registration system. The patent office only processes the formal examination of the patent applications. If the formalities and papers are all complete, it will be registered and the patent will be granted without any examination as to substance. The patents from the registration system usually are not of high-quality.

2, examination as to substance system, i.e. there is not only the formal examination, but also the examination over the inventions’ novelty, advancement and practicability. This system can guarantee the patents’ quality; but it demands large quantities of high-level inspectors and can easily result in backlog.

3, deferred examination system which to those applications that passed the formal examination, publicizes them and protect them temporarily after certain time period since the date of application; in some years after the publication the applicator demands the patent office to proceed the substantial examination. Those who failed to ask for substantial examination would be taken to withdraw the application. This system could reduce the burdens of examination. It is the system that China adopts.

Patent Enforcement
The Patent Law of some countries (such as US) doesn’t demand the patent to be executed forcefully. But most countries, especially many developing countries, legally demand the patentee to apply the patent in that country dutifully. The implementation usually is understood in this way: the product patent refers to produce this invention product; the process patent refers to use this new method in product manufacturing. The patent can only effect positively to the development of this country’s industry and technology through enforcement. Generally, the patentee allowing others to practice his patent can be thought to have enforced his patent. But importation is not enforcement. The patent laws of many countries prescribe that after 4 years since the date of application or 3 years since the patent-grant, the patent-granted invention is not executed or fully executed without just cause would be asked to implement forcefully by the authorities according to the application, i.e. the licensee implement the patent after certain payment. If two inventions rely on each other, the enforcement of one invention depends on the enforcement of the other but no permission was gained from the patentee, some countries’ patent law prescribe that forceful implementation of the other invention can be issued according to the application of one invention. If the inventions are closely related to the country’s national defense, national economy and public health, it could be permitted that other people use the invention after payment; even the country can requisition with some reward. Chinese Patent Law has special prescription for the permission of forceful enforcement of patent.
The patent Law has rules about the problems of patent infringement and lawsuit and so on. Many countries have enacted some effective rules over the implementation of the Patent Laws. In order to avoid the international infringement of patents, a series of international pacts were issued since the 19th century. Chinese Patent Law prescribes that the right of patent should be protected; that the infringer should compensate for loss and of those cases of gross violation criminal responsibility shall be allotted according to the law.

Patent Application Needed Documents
I.The retrieve files and background information related to the applied program. For example, the pre-patent files, documents, periodicals, graph papers, and so on that are close or similar to the applied program. It would be better to precede patent-retrieve before entrusting application of Chinese invention patent. Or else, the applied program may easily be rejected in the process of application.
II.The written technical materials of the applied program. These materials shall contain as follows:
1, the technical area and the applied range of the applied program， and the identical or effect-similar technical measures, technical means, ways and methods.
2, the purpose of the applied program and those technical problems needed to be solved.
3, to describe in detail the technical measures and features in realizing the purpose in words and attached maps. For example, if the applied program was a product, the technical measures and features refer to the structure of the product, the joint, distribution and correlations of various parts and their function in this program, the compound mode and the detailed dynamic system of various parts, that the applied is a method. Technical measures and technical features refer to industrial art, technological parameter and the related detail in the art. In addition, at least one particular example of the applied program should be provided (this particular example does not mean model or material object, but the drawings and word exposition demonstrating the particular example. The model or material object can only be provided to illustrate the theme of the application when the technical measures of the applied program can not be improved through maps and words.)
4, the experimental data, result or the phenomena appeared in the experiment of the applied program.
5 combine the definite case and the experimental conclusion to illustrate objectively the advantages and shortcomings of the invention. If there is no experimental data or result, the inventor should analyze the invention objectively and deduce the possible merits and defects.
6, the distinctness of the applied program compared with the existing technology and technical features in the inventor’s mind.
7, the contents that should be considered technical secrets by the inventor

Typical purposes of searching

Novelty search A "novelty search" is a prior art search that is often conducted by patent attorneys, patent agents or professional patent searchers before an inventor files a patent application. A novelty search helps an inventor to determine if the invention is novel before the inventor commits the resources necessary to obtain a patent. The search may include searching in databases of patents, patent applications and other documents such as utility models and in the scientific literature.

Validity search A "validity search" is a prior art search done after a patent issues. The purpose of a validity (or invalidity) search is to find prior art that the patent examiner overlooked so that a patent can be declared invalid. This might be done by an entity infringing, or potentially infringing, the patent, or it might be done by a patent owner or other entity that has a financial stake in a patent to confirm the validity of a patent.

Clearance search A clearance search is a search of issued patents to see if a given product or process violates someone else's existing patent. If so, then a validity search may be done to try to find prior art that would invalidate the patent. A clearance search is a search targeting patents being in force and may be limited to a particular country and group of countries, or a specific market.

State-of-the-art research State-of-the-art-research is often conducted by a researcher who would like a comprehensive listing of the most recent patents in a certain field, to help guide his research.

Technically, as a patent searcher, you must make sure you are familiar with the search language for the database you are using. Unfortunately, none of the different patent search engines use the exact same search language. If you assume that you can use the same syntax from one patent searching site to another, you are going to have a problem.

The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting

2010 Oct. 14th, The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting held in Beijing. After review the Committee's consideration, 181 patents were rewarded and 5 of them are China Patent Golden Award. All winning projects will public in the State Intellectual Property Office, the government website and China Intellectual Property News.

There’re some changes this time. Like the cycle turns from every two years to one year. And Gold Medal Award from the China Patent extended to China Patent Award of Excellence Gold Award, Excellence Award and the Chinese design Gold Award, Award of Excellence.

Patent Awards 2010 received a total of 431projects which come from 16 central ministries, 31 provinces, autonomous regions and Xinjiang as well as four industry associations recommended. Compared with the previous, the number of ministries recommended a relatively large increase, reaching 92. Design awards in 2010 from the previous 10 increased to around 79, which is a substantial increase.

Let’s look who are the 15 holders of patented gold projects:
Huawei, Sinopec, Sany Heavy Industry, IWNCOMM, in fact Purcell, Tsinghua University, step pharmaceutical, Visionox Technology, Huaxing Metallurgical, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, Jilin University, China Electric Power Research Institute, New World creatures, Tencent.

Respective these fifteen golds, 3 are sending by the Guangdong Provincial Intellectual Property Office, and two are from Shenzhen Huawei and Tencent. That’s indicating that Shenzhen has really strong innovation ability. Meanwhile, there are 3 golds from the universities and research institutions, which we believe is still the intellectual work in this area of the infant. There are many involved in IT industry, such as Huawei's patent No. 00122430.1 "may smooth expansion of the data communication system.” This shows that this industry remains strong vitality.

Patent Map

What's Patent Map?

A patent map (as follows) is a useful graphical model of patent visualization. This practice enables companies to identify the patents in a particular technology space, verify the characteristics of these patents, and identify the relationships among them, to see whether there are any zones of patent infringement. Patent mapping is also referred to as patent landscaping.

Why Patent Map exists?

Patent map which is a way to analyze the patent literatures becomes more and more popular for the enterprise patent workers.

A patent is a kind of exclusive rights of an inventor granted in accordance with law. Patent is a document issued by a national government granting an inventor exclusive rights to an invention for a limited time. Patents are important information sources of science and technology. Every country attaches great importance to patent literature. The patent literatures contain a large number of economic, technological and legal information, and have become an important information source for high-tech enterprises.

How Important Patent Map is

Patent Map is an important tool in collecting, settling, utilizing the information of patent. Patent Map is not fully used nowadays because the function has not been realized by most of enterprises. We hope that more and more enterprises could utilize Patent Map as a sharp weapon in technical competition. It is revealed by WIPO that over 90% of all the world s inventions are found in patent documents. Additionally, it is also disclosed by EPO that "patents reveal solutions to technical problems, and they represent an inexhaustible source of information: more than 80% of man s technical knowledge is described in patent literature." But patents are often straitjacketed as legal documents that aim to cloak a technology in the name of market interests rather than project it. Patent map provides technology formation in the relevant fields, and statistical analysis method. Analyzing the chart can academic information and make it available to company strategy. Patent map can be used for indicating the direction of enterprise's development. What is more, the technical analysis technology, especially the distribution of competitors can be used to monitor the patent technology distribution, which will enable enterprises to get the knowledge of competitors. Enterprises will not only use patent map for intellectual property management, but also apply to the management of market and technological innovations.

Patent Dashboard in the Family of Patent Tools

US Patent and Trademark Office Careers

US Patent and Trademark Office Revolution

US Patent and Trademark Office, coming from the Patent Office, has undergone a long history. The first patents for inventions were issued in 1641 by the colonial governments. The first U.S. patent laws were enacted by Congress in 1790 under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The Patent Act of 1790 was administered by a commission composed of the secretary of state, the secretary of war, and the attorney general of the U.S. The basis of the present patent system is the act of July 4, 1836. Many legislative enactments have modified the original patent law. The most important of these is the act of July 8, 1870, and the subsequent act of July 19, 1952, which revised and codified the patent laws and which amended and constitutes the patent law in force at the present time. In 1849 thePatent Office became a part of the Department of the Interior; it was transferred by executive order of the president to the Department of Commerce in 1925.On January 2, 1975, the name was changed to Patent and Trademark Office.

Trademarks Registration Points

Trademarks are federally registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce (USPTO ). When a trademark owner applies for registration, the office will examine the application to see if the trademark meets the conditions of federal law. One important condition is that the trademark is not confusingly similar to a mark previously registered or used in the United States. PatSnap can give you details which can help you avoid problems.

How to Decide US Trademark Infringement

Under a 1996 revision to the law, the owners of famous trademarks may seek to prevent use of similar marks, even if used by unrelated products. On approval of theapplication , the trademark is published in the official gazette granted; it lasts for ten years and may be renewed at ten-year intervals for as long as the trademark is still in use. Once a federal registration has been obtained, the owner may give notice by using the symbol ® next to the trademark.

For example, the celebrated trademark "Coca-Cola",
as this:

Anyone who uses a mark so similar to a registered trademark that it is likely to cause customer confusion is an infringer and can be sued in a state or federal court. In deciding whether there is infringement, the court compares the conflicting trademarks as to similarities in sound, appearance, and meaning, and compares the similarities of the goods and services. Other relevant factors include whether the competing parties goods are sold to similar customers, through similar channels of trade, and the fame of the marks. Unlike patent or copyright infringement, trademark infringement is defined solely by the likely confusion of customers. The usual remedy after a court trial finding trademark infringement is an injunction prohibiting the infringer from using its mark.

Where to Start Searching ?

When you want to apply a patent, you shoiuld avoid a reduplicate one, so you have to search all the patents. But with the amount of patent and non-patent information increasing every day, you may ask, “Where do I start searching!?”Do not worry, you could turn to Patent Searching Engine for help, a engine will help you sift through mountains of data in search of a few priceless nuggets of information. While every patent search is a learning process, the engine will help get you get a head start in the right direction. Conveying patent information in a broader database beyond the patent search, some engine also details patent analysis.

In general, Patent Search Engine covers more advanced uses of patent searching. Have you ever used Patent Search Engine? If you do not have patent search engine experience, you can obtain background information by going online and using free patent search engines, such as www.patsnap.com or www.google.com/patents. Both of these free patent search engines have online instructions. You can do it. Hope these online tools could help you.

Search For a Patent Yourself

How do you search for a patent, yourself?
Yes - actually you can do your own patent searching. There are today plenty of patent search engines to help you do just that. There are any number of ways for you to do this and I hope you find the information here useful.

Patent searching yourself is very doable. To be perfectly honest though it can be tedious if you have never done it before and are not excited about reading through many dense patents. Your other option of course is to hire a patent search firm to do it for you and save your time.

The most familiar service to many can be found at the patent search engines of United States Patent Office .

Frankly, my preferred online search is the one at Patsnap. There is both a free version, and a much more sophisticated on that I use in my practice. It can be found at patsnap.com. There are many other good search resources, and many of them are free. they only consume your time!

USPTO Announces New Patent Examination Quality Initiative

Written by Gene Quinn

Yesterday the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced the adoption of new, more comprehensive procedures for measuring the quality of patent examination. The new measurement procedures were crafted by a joint USPTO-Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) Task Force after consultation with the intellectual property community and the public, and according to the Adoption of Quality Metrics document patent blogs were also reviewed for ideas, thus it would seem that the USPTO has left no stone unturned in an effort to find a better way to measure patent examination quality.

The new procedures measure seven diverse aspects of the examination process to form a more comprehensive composite quality metric.  The composite quality metric is designed to reveal the presence of quality issues arising during examination, and to aid in identification of their sources so that problems may be remediated by training, and so that the presence of outstanding quality procedures may be identified and encouraged. The procedures will be implemented for fiscal year 2011.

In the past the Patent Office measured quality using only two measurements; namely the final rejection and allowance compliance rate and the in-process compliance rate. The final rejection and allowance rate related to a review of the correctness of the examiners’ overall determination of the patentability of the claims, while the in-process compliance rate reviewed the quality of the actions taken during the course of examination. There has long been the belief by patent examiners, and with more than a little justification, that they would have negative reviews that would hurt their standing if they allowed patent claims erroneously but no negative consequences if they were to reject all claims. This widespread belief was, in significant part, what lead to the abysmal allowance rate of 38% in January 2009.

The Kappos Administration recognized that the two aforementioned measurements relate to only some elements of quality, and have long been regarded as insufficient measurements of patent examination quality. Accordingly, a more comprehensive review will now take place to ensure patent examination quality. These seven aspects include the two previous measurements of quality, plus five new measures. The measurements include:

1. The quality of the action setting forth allowance or final rejection of the application.
2. The quality of the actions taken during the course of examination.
3. The use of best search practices in the examiner’s initial search for prior art.
4. The use of best examination practices in the first action on the merits.
5. Trends in compact and efficient examination as reflected in aggregate USPTO data.
6. The perceptions of applicants and practitioners as measured by surveys.
7. The perceptions of examiners as measured by surveys.

The first two on the list above are the traditional measurements of quality employed by the Patent Office for some time. With respect to the remainder of the new criteria for evaluation, here is what will be measured.

Best Patent Search Practices

The third metric is a detailed measure of the degree to which the initial search performed by the examiner conforms with the best practices of the USPTO. The first action on the merits (FAOM) search review will be performed by random sampling of first actions on the merits in applications currently undergoing examination. This review analyzes the examiner’s search in these cases, thus providing the first USPTO quality metric focused solely upon the Office’s initial search. Under this FAOM search metric, individual applications are assigned a score based upon their compliance with best practices at the USPTO. For example, recordation of an inventor name search, appropriate classes and subclasses, and consideration of the references in an applicant’s information disclosure statement will each accord points for that application.

Complete First Action on the Merits

The fourth metric is a detailed measure of the degree to which the first action on the merits in an application conforms with the best practices of the USPTO. The complete FAOM review will be performed by random sampling of first Office actions on the merits in applications currently undergoing examination, providing a similar analysis to the in-process review but in much greater detail. This review analyzes the Office’s action on a claim-by-claim basis. Review will be based on best practices including but not limited to: proactive use of interviews to resolve issues, propriety of all rejections, requirements (including restriction requirements), and objections, and compliance with statutory requirements, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) guidelines, and compact prosecution principles.

Compact and Efficient Examination

The fifth quality metric, quality index report (QIR), is a measure of the degree to which actions in the prosecution of all patent applications reveal trends indicative of quality concerns. For example, one of the factors in the QIR metric is an action reopening prosecution after a final rejection. This type of action has been identified by patent stakeholders as indicating an issue relating to the quality of that final rejection. While there may be specific circumstances in individual applications such that the reopening of prosecution is not related to a defect in the quality of examination, the aggregate number of actions reopening prosecution after final rejection reflects a measure of the general quality of final rejections. The QIR will take into consideration actions per disposal, the percentage of disposals that are not RCEs, the percentage of final actions not reopened, the percentage of non-final actions that are not second or subsequent non-final actions and the percentage of total restrictions not made on second or subsequent action.

External Quality Survey

The sixth metric, external quality survey data, is a measure of the degree to which the experience of patent applicants and practitioners reveal trends and issues indicative of quality concerns. Quantitative external quality survey data will be gathered through responses to posed questions requiring rating of the respondent’s experience on a numerical scale. To effectuate this measurement the USPTO will commission semi-annual surveys to ascertain applicant and practitioner perception of issues addressed by the composite quality metric. The surveys will request the applicant or practitioner to answer certain questions relating to their experiences over the prior quarter. Questions in surveys will also seek to ascertain an external perception of issues not addressed by any other factors, to thereby present a more complete representation of the patent process. Since communication between the examiner and the applicant or practitioner has been identified by patent stakeholders as playing a vital role in effective examination, survey questions will address whether the interview involved the presence of a negotiating authority and/or the inventors, as well as the extent of the examiner’s application of relevant standards and laws and the examiner’s overall preparedness for the interview.

Internal Quality Survey

The seventh metric, internal quality survey, is a measure of the degree to which the experience of patent staff such as patent examiners and supervisory patent examiners (SPEs) reveals trends and issues indicative of quality concerns. Quantitative internal quality survey data will be gathered through responses to questions in which the examiners rate, on a numerical scale, their experiences over the prior quarter. Survey questions will inquire into the examiners’ experience with supervisory patent examiners, examination tools such as e-Red folder, and the effects of recent training initiatives such as examiner training on formal interviews. Surveys will also inquire into such issues as the quality of IDS filings and the extent to which applicants and/or their representatives effectively used interviews to advance prosecution. Furthermore, based on stakeholders’ input from the May 2010 roundtable discussions and written comments, this review will inquire into the examiners’ experience with the quality of claim drafting, such as over breadth, compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and the extent to which claims are drafted to capture the concept of the invention.

“We are pleased to introduce these new quality measurement procedures, which will yield a more comprehensive view of quality than previous quality reporting methodologies,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “Achieving high-quality examination is always our top priority, and these new procedures will help us both address quality issues and identify and encourage best practices.”

The USPTO plans to periodically disseminate the results of each measure, along with the aggregate data used in their calculation to the extent practicable, on the USPTO website.  These measures are expected to be reported at the middle and end of each fiscal year, although it is possible that some measures may be reportable on a quarterly basis.

In the press release announcing the new patent examination quality initiative the Patent Office pointed out that the implementation of enhanced quality review does not attempt to alter any of the standards for patentability.

Source:Patent Search Engine