0

In reference to the patent: WO2016169199A1

This patent application clearly copies prior art US6464275 October 2002 and other prior art that is clearly improved upon by US7721837 May 2010.

It is believed that CN/China Nation is used within their country where by their own law in 2001 they can not challenge any prior art and they use WO/World Order to file for patents in other countries, can anyone elaborate?

Improve this question
6
  • I really have no idea what you're asking. China is a member of the WTO, and so has to comply with TRIPS. Are you asking whether they deviate in some respect? A Chinese patent application has to comply with novelty and inventive step requirements to be granted, like in every other notable country. Are you asking whether the standards are different? A foreign applicant can obtain a Chinese patent in exactly the same way as as a Chinese applicant: whether directly, via Convention application, or via national phase entry. Are you asking whether there is de facto discrimination based on origin?
    – Maca
    Mar 1, 2018 at 19:54
  • As an aside, CN stands for China (as in the People's Republic of), not "China Nation", and WO stands for World (Intellectual Property) Office, not "World Order".
    – Maca
    Mar 1, 2018 at 19:54
  • Moreover, if you are minded to clarify this question, you might want to make clear that the Medium article linked to was written by you. So that your question doesn't seem just like spam.
    – Maca
    Mar 1, 2018 at 19:57
  • Thank you for your comments and the information. I was not clear that the WO was also an application since the USPTO and other patent offices only uses the CN when prior art is cited. I have deleted my article and again thank you all for clarifying this for me.
    – David DeVeau
    Mar 1, 2018 at 21:01
  • No problem at all: I'm pleasantly surprised that I was actually helpful. Please do ask further questions if you are wondering about any aspects of patent law at all: it's what we're here for after all.
    – Maca
    Mar 1, 2018 at 21:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

That's a patent application - it was not granted.

For more information please read about the difference between applications and granted patents, for example here.

Improve this answer
7
  • Thank you for your comments and the information. I was not clear that the WO was also an application since the USPTO and other patent offices only uses the CN when prior art is cited. I have deleted my article and again thank you all for clarifying this for me.
    – David DeVeau
    Mar 1, 2018 at 21:02
  • In case anyone would like to read, comment on and maybe even suggest additions to my latest short article about pending applications that appear to be copies of prior art that were cited as improved upon... Please note that I mention there are no formal methods to inform the USPTO of such cases, that I can find, if there is please advise... medium.com/@daviddeveau/…
    – David DeVeau
    Mar 4, 2018 at 18:15
  • @DavidDeVeau I don't want to sound rude, but maybe you should start with understanding the patent system before you write articles. /// Almost all patent applications get very close to the prior art and only claim small modifications.
    – user18033
    Mar 4, 2018 at 21:26
  • Don, not to be rude either but when a patent is written correctly it addresses all prior art in detail of why it completes the design intent of all other prior art and no new patent can be granted that can not improve use in that main intent and especially one that is a copy of one cited. In other words this variation was already covered in my patent that I researched, wrote and argued myself and I wanted to know if I have any way of giving the USPTO a heads up. That is what my article is about by the way, a patent application that is copy of a prior art covered in my patent.
    – David DeVeau
    Mar 4, 2018 at 22:30
  • 1
    @DavidDeVeau it's just not true that a well written patent addresses all prior art. Yes there is a way. “Third party observation“.
    – user18033
    Mar 5, 2018 at 5:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .