It's hard to tell true from false: Is scientific truth a child's play? After five years of actual trial, examination, court first instance, court second instance (2020) Supreme Law Zhixingzhou No.629, and court retrial (202 1), the State Information Bureau has applied for ballpoint pen application No.201391. Always insist on fabricating "the specific example of D=0.25mm is disclosed in the comparison document1(US2008/0199243a1)", so that the ink channel of the ballpoint pen head is only 0.05mm smaller than the diameter of the hair. Because the reference document 1 explicitly restricts the use of balls with a diameter greater than 0.7mm in the specification and claims, it is necessary to increase the central aperture on the back of the ball seat of the ordinary spring pen to solve the technical problem of insufficient ink supply for the ballpoint pen head. It can be seen that the National Intelligence Agency has false certificates out of thin air, which is hard to convince. So please ask experts to seek truth from facts, innovate in science and technology, and answer questions about ballpoint pens.
Don't know the standards: for example, GB/T 4459.4-3003 and GB/T 1973.3-2005 and GB/T 1239.2-2009 applied for ballpoint pens after five years of actual trial, review, court first instance and court second instance (202 1). As an objective fact, it is clearly described that the upper left end face of the rolled piece 16 is tightly wound in Figure 2 and Figure 3 comparing the specifications of the document1(JP 2012-179751A). Therefore, the channel of "ink flowing along the pitch space" forms a closed structure.
I don't know the drawings: the patent application number after five years of actual trial, review, first instance and second instance. 201610095842.9 (2021), the state information administration wrongly identified no. 5 12 as "only the flat shape is shown in the drawings of this application. Originally, in the attached drawing 1-2 of this specification, the two guide lines marked with 3 respectively represent two cross-sectional views with different shapes of the same technical feature (flat symmetrical convex part).
Contrary to science: Is the abnormal patent application "specific noun" the first in the world? No longer abide by the examination standards of novelty, creativity and practicality stipulated in China's patent law? The State Information Bureau only charges substantive examination fees for invention patent applications 202011021280.6 and 2020 10740832.2, but does not conduct serious, objective and fair substantive examination of published patent applications. Directly issued a special letter for business review, Wang Ba decided that the patent application "has no retrieval and review significance", and asked the patent applicant to "submit opinions and reasons, and submit sufficient supporting materials", especially how the patent applicant accurately stated his defense opinions according to two pages of empty words without clearly giving the factual basis (comparison documents). I would like to ask social scientists and natural scientists: Can this innovation of the National Information Bureau encourage inventions and promote scientific and technological progress?
It is particularly strange that the National Intelligence Agency has violated its promise to grant ZL a patent.
202021519941.3 and ZL2020 2 2 126649. 1 are described as abnormal patent applications, so the means are reversed.
150%; Mso-ascii-font-family: Microsoft yahei; MSO- Hans -font-family: Microsoft Yahei; mso-bidi-font-family:
Song dynasty; Color: red ">; Why talk about science?