In 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a revised version of the Patent Examination Guidelines. While some changes are structural and technical, several updates may directly affect how foreign applicants prepare and file their patent applications in China.

This article summarizes the main points that are most relevant to overseas applicants and shares some practical observations based on day-to-day prosecution experience.

1. More Clarification on Inventiveness Assessment

One noticeable update is the refinement of how inventiveness is evaluated, especially in cases involving algorithm-related inventions, software solutions, and business-related technical features.

In practice, inventiveness objections in China often focus heavily on whether a feature makes a technical contribution to the solution of a technical problem. The revised Guidelines provide more structured explanations on:

how technical features are identified;

how distinguishing features should be analyzed;

how technical effects are determined.

For foreign applicants, this means that simply emphasizing “improved performance” or “better efficiency” in a general way may not 

be sufficient. It becomes increasingly important to clearly describe:

what technical problem is being solved;

which specific technical means are used; and

what technical effect is directly achieved.

From a drafting perspective, applications entering China through the PCT route should ensure that technical effects are not only mentioned in the background or summary, but also supported in the detailed description with concrete embodiments.

2. Tighter Standards on Amendments

Another important aspect relates to amendments during substantive examination.

The revised Guidelines further clarify the boundaries of permissible amendments, particularly in relation to:

addition of new technical features,

combination of embodiments, and

extraction of features from examples.

In practice, Chinese examiners have already been relatively strict in applying Article 33 (added matter). The updated text reinforces this trend by emphasizing that any amendment must be clearly and directly derivable from the original disclosure.

For foreign applicants, this creates two practical challenges:

Claim drafting at the filing stage becomes more critical.

lRelying on broad, generic disclosure to support later narrowing amendments may be risky.

We have seen cases where applicants attempted to introduce intermediate generalizations during prosecution, only to face added-matter objections. The revised Guidelines suggest that such objections may become even more common.

3. Increasing Attention to Support and Clarity

The new version also places stronger emphasis on the support requirement and clarity of claims.

In particular, examiners are encouraged to:

examine whether the claims are fully supported by the description;

assess whether functional features are sufficiently defined;

review whether technical terms are clearly explained.

For foreign-origin applications, especially those translated from English, this is an area that requires attention.

4. Guidance on AI-Related and Emerging Technologies

The 2026 revision also provides more detailed guidance on the examination of AI-related inventions and other emerging technologies.

Rather than treating AI-related inventions as a special category, the Guidelines continue to emphasize that:

the invention must still solve a technical problem;

the solution must use technical means; and

the result must produce a technical effect.

However, the explanatory examples are expanded, which helps clarify how examiners may analyze such cases.

For foreign applicants in AI, data processing, or intelligent systems, it is advisable to:

describe hardware interaction where applicable;

clearly link algorithms to specific technical applications;

avoid presenting purely abstract data processing without technical context.

5. What This Means for Overseas Applicants

Overall, the 2026 revision does not fundamentally change China’s patent system. However, it reflects a continuing trend toward:

stricter formal compliance,

more structured inventiveness analysis,

and closer scrutiny of claim wording.

For overseas applicants planning to enter China, a few practical suggestions are:

Draft with potential Chinese examination standards in mind, especially regarding technical effects.

Avoid relying solely on functional claim language.

Ensure sufficient fallback positions are explicitly disclosed.

Pay attention to translation quality and adaptation, not just literal accuracy.

Conclusion

The revised 2026 Examination Guidelines provide more detailed explanations rather than introducing dramatic policy shifts. However, in day-to-day prosecution, even small clarifications can influence examination practice.

For foreign applicants, understanding these nuances early can help improve grant rates and reduce unnecessary rounds of office actions and responses during prosecution in China.