If the technical solutions are consistent, then it stands to reason that the same technical problems can be solved. Especially for the judgment of the inventiveness of claims, the factors considered are, first, whether they belong to the same technical field, and second, the technical solution adopted, and then the technical problem to be solved will be judged based on the different technical features in the technical solution. At this point, it can be seen that when the examiner makes an inventive step judgment, he objectively analyzes the technical problem to be solved based on the comparison between the application and the prior art. If even the technical solutions are basically the same, then it can be considered that the existing technology can solve the same technical problem. Therefore, when applying for a patent, it is not optimistic whether there is creativity.
Moreover, when the technical indicators are more specific, the scope of protection is generally narrower and falls within the protection scope of a wide range of claims, which affects the creativity.
To sum up, I think that when the technical fields are the same and the technical solutions are very similar, there is basically no creativity.