Newly Amended Guidelines For Patent Examination To Take Effect On January 1, 2026

Article Insights

On November 10, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the Administration Order No. 84, namely the Decision on Amendments to the Guidelines for Patent Examination (“Guidelines” hereinafter), and the newly-revised Guidelines is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.

The amendments cover twenty-three chapters across the five major parts of the Guidelines, specifically including the following.

1. Amendments to Section 4.1.2 “Inventors” in Chapter One of Part I

(1) Amended the first paragraph: Rule 14 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law stipulates that an inventor refers to a person who has made inventive contribution to the essential features of an invention. Fake inventors shall not be listed. In the patent examination procedure, examiners generally do not check whether the inventors listed in the application comply with this provision, except when there is evidence indicating that the listed inventors do not meet the requirement.

(2) Amended the second paragraph: Inventors shall be individuals (i.e., natural persons). The application must include the identification information of all inventors and ensure that the information is accurate. The application shall not list organizations, collectives, or the names of artificial intelligence, for example, it shall not be written as “×× Research Group” or “Artificial Intelligence ××.”

2. Amendments to Section 4.1.6 “Patent Agencies and Patent Agents” in Chapter One of Part I

(1) Added the new provision: Patent agencies shall verify the applicant's identification information and contact details provided in the Request Form.

(2) Added the provision taken from the Regulations on Patent Agency: Patent agencies and patent agents shall not apply for patents or request invalidation of patents in their own name.

3. Amendments to Section 6.2 “Claiming Priority” in Chapter One of Part I

Added the new provision: If the parent application claims priority, but the applicant did not declare the claim of that priority in the request form when filing a divisional application, the divisional application shall be deemed not to have claimed the priority, and the examiner shall issue a Notification of Priority Deemed Not to Have Been Claimed.

4. Amendments to Section 6.2.2 “Handling of the Same Invention-Creation” in Chapter Three of Part II

Amended the final paragraph as follows: For the same applicant who, on the same day (referring only to the application date), applies for both a utility model and an invention patent for the same invention-creation, according to Rule 47 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, it is required to indicate at the time of application that the other patent has already been applied for the same invention-creation. If no such indication is made, it shall be handled under the provisions of Article 9.1 of the Patent Law, which states that only one patent can be granted for the same invention-creation. If an indication is made and the invention patent application undergoes examination without any grounds for rejection being found, the applicant shall be notified to declare abandonment of the utility model patent within a specified time limit. If the applicant declares abandonment, a decision to grant the invention patent shall be issued, and the declaration of abandonment of the utility model patent shall be published together with the announcement of the invention patent grant. If the applicant does not agree to abandon, the invention patent application shall be rejected; if the applicant does not respond within the time limit, it shall be deemed that the invention patent application has been withdrawn. If the applicant abandons an already granted utility model patent, a written declaration of abandonment of the utility model patent must be submitted when responding to the office action. At this time, for the invention patent application that meets the conditions for grant and has not yet been granted, a notice of grant shall be issued, and the written declaration of abandonment of the aforementioned utility model patent shall be transferred to the relevant examination department for registration and publication by the Patent Office, indicating in the announcement that the utility model patent will be terminated from the date of the announcement of the invention patent grant.

5. Amendments to Section 6.4 “Inventiveness” in Chapter Four of Part II

Amended as: Whether a patent application possesses inventiveness is related to the claimed invention. Therefore, the assessment of inventiveness of the application should be based on the technical solution defined in the claims. When determining inventiveness, the evaluation should be conducted on the technical solution as a whole as defined in the claims, that is, assessing whether the technical solution as a whole is inventive, rather than assessing whether a particular technical feature possesses inventiveness. Technical features that contribute to the prior art, such as those creating unexpected technical effects or overcoming technical prejudice, should be included in the claims; otherwise, even if stated in the description, they will not be considered when evaluating the inventiveness. Features that do not contribute to solving the technical problem, even if included in the claims, generally do not impact the inventiveness of the technical solution.

【Example】

An invention relating to a camera aims to solve the technical problem of achieving more flexible shutter control. This technical problem is addressed by improving the relevant mechanical and circuit structures inside the camera. After the examiner pointed out that the claims lacked inventiveness, the applicant added features to the claims, including the shape of the camera body, the size of the display screen, and the position of the battery compartment. The description does not indicate any connection between these newly added features and the solution to the technical problem. These added features are either conventional components implied by the claimed subject matter itself, or are obtainable by a person skilled in the art based on their common technical knowledge and routine experimental methods. The applicant has not provided evidence or sufficient reasoning to show that these technical features bring any further technical effect to the claimed invention. Therefore, the above technical features do not contribute to solving the technical problem and do not impart the inventiveness of the claimed invention.

6. Amendments to Section 6 “Provisions Related to Examination of Patent Applications Containing Algorithm Features or Business Rule and Method Features (the original title of the Section)” in Chapter Nine of Part II

(1) Amended the title of this section as: Provisions related to Examination of Patent Applications Involving Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and Other Features Containing Algorithm Features or Business Rule and Method Features.

(2) Amended Section 6.1 as: Examination shall be directed at the claimed solution, that is, the solution defined in the claims, and if necessary, the content of the description shall also be examined. During the examination, technical features should not be simply separated from algorithm features or business rule and method features; instead, all the content of the claims should be considered as a whole, analyzing the technical means involved, the technical problem solved, and the technical effects achieved.

(3) Added Section 6.1.1 “Examination According to Article 5.1 of the Patent Law”: For invention patent applications that include algorithm features or business rule and method features, if the data collection, label management, rule setting, recommendation decisions, etc., contain content that violates the law, public morals, or harms the public interest, the patent shall not be granted under the provisions of Article 5.1 of the Patent Law.

(4) Added a new provision to Section 6.2: Invention patent applications containing algorithm features or business rule and method features shall not be granted patent if they violate the law, social morality, or harm public interests. Additionally, two cases have also been added to illustrate the applicable scenarios of this provision.

(5) Amended the first paragraph of Section 6.3.1 as: The description of a patent application for an invention containing algorithmic features or business rule and method features should clearly and completely describe the solution adopted by the invention to address its technical problem. Based on the inclusion of technical features, the solution may further include algorithmic features or business rule and method features that functionally support each other or interact with each other. If the invention involves the construction or training of an artificial intelligence model, it is generally necessary to clearly describe in the description the essential modules, hierarchies, or connections of the models, as well as the specific steps and parameters required for the training; if it involves applying an artificial intelligence model or algorithm in a specific field or scenario, it is generally necessary to clearly describe in the description how the model or algorithm is combined with the specific field or scenario, how the input and output data of the algorithm or model are set to indicate their intrinsic relationships, and so forth, so those skilled in the relevant technical art can implement the solution of the invention based on the content stated in the description.

7. Addition of Section 7 “Provisions Related to Examination of Invention Patent Applications Containing Bitstreams” in Chapter Nine of Part II

The new section goes as follows: In the application fields such as streaming media, communication systems, and computer systems, various types of data are generally generated, stored, and transmitted in the form of bitstreams. This section aims to provide specific provisions on the examination of invention patent applications containing bitstreams as the claimed subject matter, as well as on the drafting of descriptions and claims, in accordance with the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations.

7.1 Examination of Claimed Subject Matter

7.1.1 Examination under Item (2) in Article 25.1 of the Patent Law

If the subject matter of a claim relates only to a pure bitstream, the claim falls under the rules and methods of mental activities as stipulated in Article 25.1(2) of the Patent Law, and is not a patentable subject matter. For example, "a bitstream, characterized in that it includes syntax element A, syntax element B, ..."

If a claim, apart from its title, is limited entirely by content that only involves a pure bitstream, the claim falls under the rules and methods of mental activities stipulated in Article 25.1(2) of the Patent Law and is not a patentable subject matter. For example, "a method for generating a bitstream, characterized in that the bitstream includes syntax element A, syntax element B, ..."

7.1.2 Examination under Article 2.2 of the Patent Law

In the field of digital video encoding and decoding technology, video data is typically encoded into a bitstream through a video encoding method, and the bitstream is decoded back into video data through a video decoding method. If a specific video encoding method that generates a bitstream falls under the technical solutions referred to in Article 2.2 of the Patent Law, then the methods for storing or transmitting the bitstream defined by this specific video encoding method, as well as the computer-readable storage media that store the bitstream, can achieve optimized allocation of storage or transmission resources. Therefore, the storage or transmission methods and the computer-readable storage media defined by this specific video encoding method fall under the technical solutions described in Article 2.2 of the Patent Law and are patentable subject matter.

7.2 Drafting of the Description and Claims

7.2.1 Drafting of the Description

The description of an invention patent application that includes bitstream generated by a specific video encoding method should provide a clear and complete explanation of that specific video encoding method, sufficient for a person skilled in the relevant art to implement it. If the claimed subject matter involves methods for storing or transmitting the bitstream, as well as computer-readable storage media for storing the bitstream, the description should also provide corresponding explanations to support the claims.

7.2.2 Drafting of the Claims

Invention patent applications that include bitstreams generated by a specific video encoding method can be drafted as claims for a storage method, a transmission method, and a computer-readable storage medium. These types of claims should generally be based on the claims for the specific video encoding method that generates the bitstream and can be drafted by referencing the claims of the specific video encoding method or by including all the features of that specific video encoding method.

8. Amendments to Section 4.4 “Animal and Plant Varieties” in Chapter One “Applications Not to Be Granted Patent” of Part II

Amended the first paragraph as: Animals and plants are living entities. According to Article 25.1(4) of the Patent Law, animal and plant varieties are not patentable. The term "animal" in the Patent Law does not include humans; it refers to organisms that cannot synthesize on their own and must rely on consuming natural carbohydrates and proteins to sustain their life. The term "plant varieties" in the Patent Law refers to plant populations that have been artificially bred or discovered and improved, with consistent morphological traits and biological characteristics, and relatively stable genetic traits. Animal and plant varieties are protected by laws and regulations other than the Patent Law; for example, new plant varieties are protected under the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties.

9. Amendments to Section 9 “Examination of Invention Patent Applications in the Field of Biotechnology” in Chapter Ten of Part II

(1) Amended the second paragraph as: The definition of the term "animal" applies to the provisions of Section 4.4 of Chapter One in this Part. The term "plant" refers to organisms that can sustain themselves by synthesizing carbohydrates and proteins from inorganic substances such as water, carbon dioxide, and salts through photosynthesis, and that generally do not move. The aforementioned animals and plants can be classified at any taxonomic level, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

(2) Amended the last two paragraphs of Section 9.1.2.3 as: Wild plants found in nature that have not been technologically processed and occur naturally belong to the scientific discoveries stipulated in Article 25.1(1) of the Patent Law and are not patentable. However, when wild plants are artificially bred or improved and have industrial applicability, the plants themselves do not fall within the scope of scientific discoveries. According to the definition of “plant varieties” described in Section 4.4 of Chapter One in this Part, plants obtained through artificial breeding or improvement of discovered wild plants, as well as their reproductive material, are not considered “plant varieties” if they do not have uniform morphological characteristics and biological traits or relatively stable hereditary properties in their populations, and hence they do not fall within the scope as stipulated in Article 25.1(4) of the Patent Law.

(3) Amended Section 9.1.2.4 as: Transgenic animals or plants are animals or plants obtained through biological methods such as recombinant DNA technology in genetic engineering. If they still fall within the scope of “animal breeds” or “plant varieties” as defined in Section 4.4 of Chapter One of this Part, according to Article 25.1(4) of the Patent Law, they shall not be patented.

10. Amendments to Section 5.2.3.2 of Chapter One “Preliminary Examination on Chinese National Phase of International Applications” in Part III

For cases where “the applicant of the later application enjoys priority because of assignment, donation, or other forms of transfer of rights from the applicant of the earlier application”, unless the applicant has already made a compliant declaration of priority in the international phase, he shall submit the corresponding supporting documents. The supporting documents must be signed or stamped by all applicants of the earlier application.

11. Amendments to Section 7.3 “Other Special Fees” in Chapter One of Part III

Deleted the provision that “if the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are provided as a separate section of the description exceeding 400 pages, the sequence list shall be calculated based on 400 pages”.

12. Amendments to Section 1 “Patent Fees” in Chapter Two of Part V

Added a provision on "additional application fees": for sequence listings submitted in a computer-readable format that comply with the prescribed format, the number of pages will not be counted.

13. Regarding the Amendments to Section 6.2 “Contents of Decisions” in Chapter One of Part IV "Reexamination and Invalidation Request Examination"

(1) Changed “Examination decisions include…” to “Examination decisions usually include…”

(2) Deleted the statement “For reexamination decisions that revoke rejection decisions, the cause-of-action section can be simplified or omitted”.

14. Amendments to Section 2.1 “Principle of Non Bis in Idem” in Chapter Three “Examination of Invalidation Requests” of Part IV

Amended the first paragraph as: For a patent involved in an invalidation request that has already been decided upon, a subsequent invalidation request based on the same or substantially the same grounds and evidence shall not be accepted or examined.

15. Amendments to Section 3.2 “Eligibility of Invalidation Petitioner” in Chapter Three of Part IV

Added the new item (2) to the circumstances where the request for invalidation will not be accepted: the invalidation request is not a true expression of the petitioner's own will.

16. Amendments to Section 3.3 “Scope, Grounds, and Evidence for Requests for Invalidation” in Chapter Three of Part IV

Amended item (3) as: After the Reexamination and Invalidation Department has made a decision on a request for invalidation of a patent, a subsequent invalidation request based on the same or substantially the same grounds and evidence shall not be accepted, except in cases where the said grounds or evidence were not considered in the previous decision due to time limits or for other reasons.

17. Amendments to Section 4.6 “Amendments to Patent Documents in Invalidation Proceedings” in Chapter Three of Part IV

Added the new Section 4.6.4 “Submission of Amendments”: When a patentee amends the claims, complete replacement pages and an amendment comparison table shall be submitted. If a patentee submits multiple amended texts during the examination procedure for the same invalidation request, and all comply with the provisions of Section 4.6.3 of this Chapter, the last submitted amended text shall prevail, and the other amended texts shall not be used as a basis for examination.

18. Amendments to Section 4.2.1 “Circumstances Where Interested Parties May Request Refund” in Chapter Two of Part V

(1) Added the following circumstances:

• Before the Patent Office issues a notice that a patent application has entered the substantive examination stage, if the patent application is deemed withdrawn, a divisional application is deemed not filed, or a request to withdraw the patent application has been approved, the applicant or payer may request refund of the substantive examination fee already paid.
• The patentee or the payer may request refund of the annual fees paid after the patent has been terminated, or after the decision to declare the patent entirely invalid has been published.
• After the procedure for requesting the restoration of rights has been initiated, if the Patent Office decides not to restore the rights, the requestor or the payer may request refund of the fees paid for the restoration.

(2) Deleted Section 4.2.1.2 “Circumstances Where the Patent Office Makes Refund on Its Own Initiative".

19. Amendments to Section 8 “Order of Examination” in Chapter Seven of Part V

(1) Added a new paragraph to Section 8.1: At the applicant's request, a patent application may be examined at different speeds as needed, e.g. prioritized examination, expedited pre-examination, or deferred examination.

(2) Added the new Section 8.3 “Expedited Examination”: For patent applications submitted after pre-examination by a national-level intellectual property protection center or an expedited rights enforcement center, if they meet the relevant requirements for the expedited examination, they can be examined expediently.

20. Amendments to Section 1.3.2.6 “Patent Term Compensation” in Chapter Eight of Part V

Amended as: The items published for patent term compensation include the main classification number, patent number, application date, grant date, original patent expiry date, and current patent expiry date. The items published for pharmaceutical patent term compensation include the main classification number, patent number, application date, grant date, drug name and approved indications, original patent expiry date, and current patent expiry date.

21. Amendments to Section 1.3.2.7 “Effectiveness, Modification, and Cancellation of the Recordation of Patent License” in Chapter Eight of Part V

Amended as: The items published upon the effectiveness of the recordation of a patent license include the main classification number, patent number, recordation number, licensor, licensee, title of invention, application date, publication date, grant date, type of license (exclusive, sole, normal), and recordation date. The items published upon modification of the recordation of a patent license include the main classification number, patent number, recordation number, modification date, modification items (type of license, licensor, licensee), and the contents before and after the modification. The items published upon cancellation of the recordation of a patent license include the main classification number, patent number, recordation number, licensor, licensee, and the date of contract recordation cancellation.

22. Amendments to Section 1.2.1 “Contents of the Patent Certificate” in Chapter Nine of Part V

Added the last paragraph: For national phase applications or divisional applications, the names of inventors/designers and applicants put on the patent certificate, as of the patent application date, refer to the names of inventors or designers and the names or titles of applicants at the time the international application enters the Chinese national phase or at the submission date of the divisional application.

23. Amendments to Section 2.2.1 “Reasonable Delays in the Grant Process” in Chapter Nine of Part V

Added a new circumstance of reasonable delay that cannot be calculated for patent term compensation: Reexamination proceedings to revoke a rejection decision based on new grounds stated or new evidence submitted by the applicant.

On top of all this, the amended Guidelines have provided examination examples regarding the examination standards and drafting of application documents that include algorithm features or business rule and method features, as well as the drafting of claims for applications related to bitstreams.

Source: official website of the CNIPA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]