1. First of all, the creativity of an invention patent means that the invention is non-obvious. To prove whether there is inventive step, all you need to do is prove that the invention is non-obvious. Therefore, although the technical problem solved by the invention cannot be solved by comparative documents, it cannot be proved that the invention is non-obvious, so significant progress is not a sufficient condition for inventiveness.
In addition, “having outstanding substantive features and significant progress” is a concept introduced to explain non-obviousness, and usually the two points are inseparable.
2. There is no clear definition of the usual means, that is, when no suitable comparison documents are found or the means are obviously effective (such as using lights to illuminate, using bolts to fix things, etc.), the examiner stands From the standpoint of those skilled in the art, determine whether the technical features are a common method. The scale is usually determined by the examiner himself.
3. First of all, I don’t know much about LED, so I don’t know whether this is a common method.
However, if the distinguishing features are applied in the same or similar fields, and their structures are the same and they play the same role, then it will be deemed as a customary means or a technical inspiration, and the technical features are not creative.