Article 26(3) of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China requires that the specification disclose the invention in a manner that is sufficiently clear and complete for a person skilled in the art to carry it out. Failure to meet this requirement—commonly referred to as “insufficient disclosure”—constitutes an absolute ground for refusal during examination or invalidation after grant.
To satisfy Article 26(3), the specification must achieve both clarity and completeness. Clarity demands precise and consistent language, with a logical narrative that connects the technical problem, solution, and effects. Completeness requires inclusion of all statutory sections—such as Technical Field, Background Art, Invention Content, Description of Drawings, and Detailed Implementation—as well as all necessary technical details, including components, parameters, and procedural steps.
A recent case involving a battery explosion-proof cabinet (Application No. 202421484697.X) illustrates how to effectively respond to an objection under this article. The examiner had argued that the invention's approach—using a CO₂-based suppression system within a sealed cabinet—contradicted industry norms, which often recommend water-based methods for lithium battery fires. The examiner concluded that the application did not comply with Article 26(3).
In response, we emphasized the specific context in which the invention operates: a sealed environment. Rather than challenging general knowledge directly, we reframed the discussion around the particular constraints and risks of closed-space battery fires. We argued that while water may be suitable for open environments, it presents significant dangers in an enclosed space, such as triggering hydrogen-producing reactions with lithium metal, which could lead to explosion.
At the same time, we positioned the invention's sealed nature not as a limitation but as the core of its innovation. The proposed system combines physical isolation with chemical asphyxiation—foam blocks oxygen contact, while CO₂ reduces oxygen concentration—therely preventing fire propagation without producing hazardous secondary effects. This dual mechanism proved particularly suited to the intended use case.
The response was structured to clearly explain the cause-and-effect relationships underlying the invention, using straightforward technical reasoning to show why conventional methods were inappropriate in this context and why the proposed solution was both safe and effective.
Ultimately, the China National Intellectual Property Administration accepted the argumentation, and the patent was granted.
This case offers practical insights for responding to Article 26.3 objections. It is essential to identify the examiner'underlying concern—often rooted in perceived implausibility or nonconformity with common practice. Responses should be anchored in the invention’s specific context of use, clearly explaining why conventional approaches may not apply and how the proposed solution functions logically and safely within its intended environment.
Using confident, precise language and providing well-reasoned technical explanations are key to overcoming such objections. Even when an invention diverges from general practice, a convincingly articulated response that highlights unique constraints and innovative solutions can successfully reverse a rejection.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号