Decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination

Issued on November 10, 2025

To facilitate the public in understanding and applying the amendments to the Guidelines for Patent Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”), this document interprets the overall situation and main contents of the revision.

I. Overview of the Revision

(I) Background of the Revision

The Party Central Committee and the State Council attach great importance to intellectual property work. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out the need to improve laws and regulations related to intellectual property protection, and enhance the quality and efficiency of intellectual property examination. The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China stresses “strengthening the legal protection of intellectual property rights and developing a foundational system that supports comprehensive innovation”. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee adopted the Proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Formulating the 15th Five‑Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, emphasizing the strengthening of intellectual property protection and application.

In practice, with the rapid development of new fields and new forms of business in China and new progress in patent examination, new situations have emerged in the patent field, raising new requirements for patent examination:

1. Patent examination rules need to adapt to the rapid development of new fields and new forms of business such as artificial intelligence.

2. It is necessary to actively respond to the reasonable demands of innovation entities regarding patent grant and affirmation.

3. Mature and effective practices from patent examination need to be further institutionalized and promoted.

Therefore, to implement General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important instructions on intellectual property work and the decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee and the State Council, and to respond to new requirements for patent examination, it is necessary to revise the Guidelines.

(II) Revision Process

In January 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) launched the revision of the Guidelines. Based on extensive research on the needs of innovation entities and summary of examination experience, the Draft Guidelines for Patent Examination (Revised Version) was formulated and released for public comment from April 30 to June 15, 2025.

CNIPA further solicited opinions through written comments, seminars, and on‑site research, fully adopted public suggestions, and improved the draft. Upon approval by the CNIPA Executive Meeting, the revised Guidelines were promulgated by CNIPA Order No. 84 on November 10, 2025, and shall come into force on January 1, 2026.

(III) Revision Philosophy and Main Contents

The revision is guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implements the spirit of the 20th National Congress and the Second, Third, and Fourth Plenary Sessions of the 20th Central Committee, and strengthens the legal protection of intellectual property rights. It is demand‑oriented, focusing on improving patent examination standards for new fields and new forms of business, and addressing mature and consensus‑based issues in examination practice.

The main contents include:

1. Improving protection rules for new fields and new forms of business to stimulate industrial innovation

• Strengthen examination of AI ethics, clarify drafting requirements for application documents, and provide examination examples to adapt to AI development.

• Add special provisions for bitstream patent applications, clarify subject‑matter standards and drafting requirements to support the streaming media industry.

• Define “plant varieties”, expand patentable subject matter, and coordinate with the new plant variety protection system to strengthen seed industry IP protection.

2. Optimizing examination standards to resolve urgent practical problems

• Clarify the handling of “dual applications on the same day”: only abandonment of the utility model patent can lead to grant of the invention patent, returning to legislative intent.

• Clarify that features not contributing to solving the technical problem usually do not confer inventiveness, improving application and examination quality.

• Specify inventor information requirements and verification obligations of patent agencies to regulate practice.

• Revise additional fee calculation rules: computer‑readable sequence listings in standard format are not counted in page numbers, reducing applicant burdens.

• Adjust refund provisions to ensure accuracy and timeliness.

• Specify that invalidation requests not filed under the real intention of the requester will not be accepted, curbing abuse of the invalidation system.

• Clarify that requests with identical or substantially identical grounds and evidence will not be accepted or heard, reinforcing the principle of non bis in idem.

• Allow optimized structure of examination decisions in reexamination and invalidation procedures to focus on resolving substantive disputes.

• Improve patent term adjustment rules: delays caused by reexamination based on new grounds or evidence are regarded as reasonable.

3. Institutionalizing mature examination practices to better serve innovation entities

• Establish the on‑demand examination principle, including accelerated and delayed examination, to meet practical needs.

• Clarify priority claim rules for divisional applications where no priority declaration is filed.

• Specify the meaning of information as of the filing date on patent certificates for international and divisional applications.

• Regulate submission formats of amended documents in invalidation proceedings.

II. Revision of Examination Standards for AI‑Related Patent Applications

(I) Background

CNIPA has repeatedly improved AI‑related examination rules. Building on the Guidelines for AI‑Related Invention Patent Applications (Trial) issued in December 2024, this revision further adapts to the AI wave and addresses practical difficulties.

(II) Main Contents

This revision amends Chapter 2, Part IX, Section 6 of the Guidelines.

1. Revised Section Title

Original title:Examination Provisions for Invention Patent Applications Containing Algorithmic Features or Features of Business Rules and Methods

Revised title:Examination Provisions for Invention Patent Applications Involving Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, etc., Containing Algorithmic Features or Features of Business Rules and Methods

This clarifies the scope of application to AI and big data.

2. Added Examination Standards under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law

• Revised the examination basis to cover the description when necessary.

• Added a new subsection:6.1.1 Examination under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent LawWhere an invention patent application containing algorithmic features or business rule features involves data collection, labeling, rule setting, recommendation, or decision‑making that violates laws, public morality, or prejudices the public interest, it shall not be patentable under Article 5(1).

• Added two examination examples:

• Example 1: Big data‑based mattress sales assistance system using covert facial recognition without consent, violating the Personal Information Protection Law.

• Example 2: Autonomous vehicle emergency decision model trained to differentiate protection based on gender and age, violating public morality.

3. New Inventiveness Examples for AI

• Example 18: Ship counting method using conventional deep learning, differing only in recognition object (fruit vs. ship), no inventiveness.

• Example 19: Steel scrap classification neural network model with substantial structural improvements, possesses inventiveness.

4. Improved Drafting Requirements for AI Applications

• Specify detailed disclosure requirements for AI model structure, layers, training steps, parameters, input/output, and integration with application scenarios.

• Added new section 6.3.3 Examination Examples regarding sufficient disclosure under Article 26(3):

• Example 20: Facial feature generation method using a spatial transformation network, which is common general knowledge, sufficiently disclosed.

• Example 21: Cancer prediction method using blood routine and facial features without disclosing correlation, insufficiently disclosed.

(III) Summary

This revision improves ethical, inventiveness, and disclosure standards for AI and big data, supporting high‑quality examination and industrial innovation.

III. Revision of Examination Standards for Bitstream‑Related Patent Applications

(I) Background

Streaming media drives the digital economy. Bitstreams generated by video coding account for 80% of Internet traffic. To support new quality productive forces and fair competition, new rules for bitstream applications are added.

(II) Main Contents

A new Section 7 is added to Chapter 2, Part IX of the Guidelines.

1. Pure Bitstream Claims

A claim directed solely to a bitstream constitutes a rule or method of mental activity under Article 25(1)(2) and is not patentable subject matter.

2. Method Claims for Storing/Transmitting Bitstreams

Must include steps of performing a video coding method to generate the bitstream, then storing or transmitting it.

3. Computer‑Readable Storage Medium Claims

Must follow the format:medium + program/instructions + bitstream + processor executing the program to generate the bitstream via video coding.

(III) Summary

This revision lays an institutional foundation for patent protection of streaming media technology and new quality productive forces.

IV. Revision of Examination Standards for Biological Breeding

(I) Purpose

To align the definition of “plant variety” with the Seed Law and Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and protect breeding intermediate materials.

(II) Main Contents

1. Definition of “Plant Variety”

Added to Part II, Chapter I, Section 4.4:A plant variety under the Patent Law means an artificially bred or discovered and improved plant group with uniform morphological and biological characteristics and relatively stable genetic traits.

2. Naturally Occurring Wild Plants

Naturally occurring wild plants without human intervention are scientific discoveries and not patentable. Artificially selected or improved plants with industrial utility are not.

3. Judgment of “Plant Variety”

A plant or its reproductive material is a “plant variety” only if it has uniform and stable traits as a group.

• Clonal material = plant variety.

• Broadly defined plant groups defined only by a gene or protein without uniform traits = not a plant variety.

4. Transgenic Plants

Inserted “if” to clarify that transgenic plants are plant varieties only if they meet the uniformity and stability standard.

(III) Summary

This revision strengthens patent protection for biological breeding and supports high‑quality seed industry development.

V. Revision of General Provisions for Substantive Examination of Inventions

(I) Improved Handling of “Dual Applications on the Same Day”

Only abandonment of the utility model patent can lead to grant of the invention patent. Modification of the invention application to avoid double patenting is no longer allowed, returning to the original legislative intent.

(II) Improved Inventiveness Examination

Clarified that features not contributing to solving the technical problem usually do not confer inventiveness. Examination focuses on the substantive contribution of the invention.

(III) Summary

These revisions improve examination quality, clarify legal standards, and balance the interests of patentees and the public.

VI. Revision of Provisions Concerning Reexamination and Invalidation Proceedings

(I) Purpose

To improve efficiency, clarify legal application, and respond to innovation demands.

(II) Main Contents

1. Structure of Examination Decisions

Changed from “shall include” to “usually includes”, allowing optimization while ensuring standardization.

2. Principle of Non Bis in Idem

Changed “same grounds and evidence” to “identical or substantially identical grounds and evidence” to prevent abusive repetitive requests.

3. Invalidation Requester Qualification

Requests not filed under the real intention of the requester (e.g., identity fraud) will not be accepted.

4. Submission of Amended Documents in Invalidation

Added rules for submission via replacement pages and amendment tables.If multiple amended documents are filed, the last one in compliance will be the basis for examination.

(III) Summary

These revisions clarify procedures, improve efficiency, and strengthen the credibility of the patent system.

VII. Revision of Provisions Concerning Preliminary Examination and Procedure Management

(I) Purpose

To protect innovation achievements and facilitate applicants.

(II) Main Contents

1. Preliminary Examination of Invention Applications

• Clarified inventor information must be true; patent agencies must verify applicant identity and contact information.

• Divisional applications failing to claim priority in the request form are deemed not to have claimed priority.

2. International Applications Entering the National Phase

• Priority assignment certificates must be signed by all applicants of the earlier application.

• Computer‑readable sequence listings in standard format are not counted in page numbers for additional fees.

3. Patent Application and Procedure Management

• Refund provisions unified: all refunds are applicant‑requested; no more office‑initiated refunds.

• Established on‑demand examination: accelerated, delayed, and fast‑track examination.

• Terminology aligned with the Civil Code: “licensor” and “licensee”.

• Clarified information on patent certificates for international and divisional applications.

• Delays due to reexamination based on new grounds or evidence are reasonable delays not eligible for patent term adjustment.

(III) Summary

These revisions streamline procedures, reduce burdens, and improve the quality and efficiency of preliminary examination and processing.

Conclusion

The revised Guidelines are guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. They improve protection systems for AI, bitstreams, biological breeding, and other new fields, optimize examination standards, institutionalize effective practices, and strengthen the legal guarantee of intellectual property rights to stimulate innovation across society.