Utility model patents constitute one of China’s three patent types, alongside invention patents and design patents. They provide innovators with an effective pathway for protecting their technical achievements. Due to advantages such as a short application cycle, low protection costs, and a relatively lower technical threshold, utility model patents have become a vital choice for enterprises and individuals seeking to protect innovations. Determining the subject matter of utility model patent protection is central to both application preparation and examination practice.
Article 2(3) of the Patent Law stipulates: "A utility model refers to any new technical solution relating to the shape, structure, or combination thereof, of a product, which is fit for practical use."

According to this provision, the subject matter eligible for utility model patent protection must simultaneously satisfy three elements:

1. A Product
2. Shape and/or Structure
3. A Technical Solution

Specifically:

• Shape of a Product: Refers to the product's external form, contour, and overall design (e.g., a novel mobile phone case design offering improved drop resistance and heat dissipation).
• Structure of a Product: Refers to the specific internal configuration, components, and their interrelationships within the product (e.g., a novel robotic arm with an optimized internal structure enhancing work efficiency and precision).
• Combination of Shape and Structure: This is the most common subject matter for utility model protection, involving comprehensive improvements to both a product's appearance and internal construction (e.g., a novel office chair with an aesthetically pleasing design and an improved internal structure providing better support and comfort).

The following two cases illustrate common issues encountered in practice regarding the subject matter eligibility of utility model patents.

Case 1: Review Decision on Reexamination Request No. 2F140848

Original Claim 1:

1. A desk lamp, characterized by comprising:

• a base;
• a lamp holder movably connected to the base, the lamp holder being provided with an image capturing device;
• a control device disposed inside the base, the control device being configured to control the lamp holder to rotate to a target position based on an image captured by the image capturing device.

Reason for Rejection: The claimed solution relied on a computer program within the control device to achieve automatic adjustment of the lamp holder. Although hardware structural features were present, the essence of the improvement lay in the computer program (i.e., the method itself). Therefore, it did not qualify as protectable subject matter for a utility model patent.

Amended Claim 1 (Reexamination Stage):

1. A desk lamp, characterized by comprising:

• a base;
• a lamp holder movably connected to the base, the lamp holder being provided with an image capturing device;
• a driving unit comprising a drive motor and a support shaft, the drive motor being disposed inside the base and connected to the support shaft in a transmission manner, a top end of the support shaft being connected to the lamp holder;
• a control device disposed inside the base, the control device being configured to control the drive motor to drive the lamp holder to rotate to a target position based on an image captured by the image capturing device.

(Note: The applicant submitted four prior art references to demonstrate the control logic was not novel).

Reexamination Decision: The prior art references provided by the applicant (relating to camera control devices and methods) disclosed control logic identical to that of the present application (detecting a target based on an image and controlling rotation to the target position). The control method disclosed in this evidence represented a sub-concept of the functional feature in Claim 1 regarding the control device. This proved that the computer program involved in Claim 1 belonged to the prior art. Consequently, the original rejection decision was overturned.

Analysis:

1. Product claims merely naming a known computer program generally qualify as utility model subject matter.

2. Product claims involving both hardware improvements and computer programs:

• Qualify if the improvement lies in the hardware and the computer program is known.
• Do not qualify if the improvement pertains to both the hardware and the computer program itself.

Case 2: Examination of Patent Application No. 202323145848.7

Original Claims:

• Claim 1: "the material of the first color filter comprises a preset pigment material".
• Claim 11: "the preset pigment material comprises phthalocyanine material, and the material of the light-absorbing layer comprises yellow pigment".

Examination Opinion: The claims included features constituting an improvement to the material itself. As utility models only protect shape, structure, or their combination, the claims did not comply.

Applicant's Amendments:

• Claim 1: "the material of the first color filter is a preset pigment material".
• Claim 11: "the preset pigment material is phthalocyanine material, and the material of the light-absorbing layer is yellow pigment".
• Reasoning for Amendments:

1. The amended claims specify known materials, not improvements to the material itself.
2. Changing "comprises" (open-ended) to "is" (closed-ended) merely identifies the material by name, without involving its composition or formula, further demonstrating no material improvement.

Result: The examiner accepted the amendments and arguments, and the patent was granted.

Analysis:

• Product claims merely naming a known material generally qualify as utility model subject matter.
• Product claims involving improvements to the material itself (e.g., new composition, new formula) do not qualify.
• Limitations concerning composition or content are acceptable if they clearly pertain to known solutions.

Drafting and Examination Response Recommendations

1. Utility Models Involving Computer Programs

Claim Drafting:

• (Primary Principle) Avoid or minimize the inclusion of functional limitations likely construed as computer program features, provided the technical solution remains fully enabled.
• (Necessity Principle) If functional limitations related to a computer program are essential, retain only those directly associated with the physical structure of the device, omitting indirectly associated functions.

Examination Response:

• Submit prior art evidence proving the computer program-related features are known (non-novel).
• (Within amendment limits) Modify the wording of the computer program-related features to retain only directly associated functional limitations.

2. Utility Models Involving Material Features

Claim Drafting:

• (Primary Principle) Avoid material features in independent claims unless indispensable.
• (Necessity Principle) If material features are essential, use closed-ended descriptions (e.g., "is", "consists of") rather than open-ended ones (e.g., "comprises", "includes") to avoid implying material composition/formula.

Examination Response:

• Submit prior art evidence proving the material features are known (non-novel).
• (Within amendment limits) Amend material limitations from open-ended (e.g., "comprises") to closed-ended (e.g., "is", "consists of") descriptions