Can the utility model patent be repeatedly examined and approved without substantive examination?

I couldn't help laughing after reading the first "authoritative" answer provided by the landlord. Isn't this for novelty? And I also know another thing, that is, no one will read the bulletin, and the examiner will not read it. If you read the announcement, there will be no obvious duplicate authorization. If you really want to see the examination standards of utility models, you might as well ask for a search report for a patent and see how it is examined. Standards are three characteristics of patents. After reading this article, I have no interest in paying attention to this issue, because the questioner is an expert.

I am looking forward to the questioner's answer, but I suggest that the questioner write the answer as a supplement to the question, so that everyone can see what the authoritative answer looks like.

It turned out that the questioner was a senior, so I was rude! Because I have only been engaged in intellectual property business for 8 years.

But as far as my experience is concerned, people who basically engaged in patent business in the 1980 s did not have a good foundation. The so-called teachers in the firm I met didn't even know what creativity was or novelty was.

But I am still looking forward to the authoritative answer from the landlord. It's so attractive!

In fact, the utility model does not undergo substantive examination, that is, it only depends on whether the format is correct.

In this case, many non-patentable patent applications were approved, and many duplicate cases were approved. But this is not a random batch, because it is a rule.

In order to make up for this defect, the public is given the right to review, that is, the procedure of invalidation. If duplicate authorization is found, a request for invalidation may be made according to the restrictions of an invention and a patent.

In fact, the patent law does not allow repeated authorization, so repeated authorization is provided to the public for examination as an invalid reason.

Only in the process of utility model retrieval report will the substantive examination of utility model be carried out, and the standards for substantive examination are actually the same as those for invention examination. However, the request to retrieve the report can only be made by the patentee or interested party.