Novelty and practicality are usually objective indicators and easy to achieve: as long as one's own invention (incomplete plagiarism) is always different from the existing technology, usually the invention is also practical. However, whether there is creativity (in fact, it is to let the examiner realize that the invention is creative) will test the basic skills of patent agents.
Whether an application finally gets a patent right depends mainly on the difference between it and the comparison document. So:
First of all, I want to do a good job of searching and know what others have done and how to do it, so that I can avoid it when writing an application;
Secondly, I should emphasize the difference between the application form and the comparison document. I can make a fuss about the difference.
Even simple minor changes can often be authorized if they cannot be retrieved and there are sufficient experiments in the application documents to prove that such changes do bring beneficial effects.
Third, the background technology column in the application document is actually very important. To write the closest technology, we are not afraid of being close (we know that we can only avoid it when writing the claim later, so as to avoid future troubles), and we should write a lot of things that are not closely related to the invented technology, such as how to treat this disease and the source of this medicine. Although it is ok to write it out, it is useless for patent authorization. These backgrounds are the needs of drug research and development, not the technical background of patents.
Find Bajie's intellectual property rights and solve the patent problem.