-
-
Services
-
-
27
2026-03
Article 2 “Commonplace Design” in China: Hidden Features Still Count in Assessing New Design Eligibility
Unlike novelty-based rejections, Article 2 rejections involve no prior art citation at all. Instead, the examiner asserts that the claimed design allegedly consists only of commonplace geometric shapes or patterns and therefore does not qualify as a protectable "new design". These objections are becoming increasingly common in China, particularly for partial designs or designs composed of simple geometric elements, and they require a fundamentally different response strategy from novelty-based rejections.
The case shared today provides valuable guidance for practitioners handling Article 2 objections in Chinese design patent prosecution. First, "commonplace" is not synonymous with "simple". A design using basic geometric forms is not automatically excluded, and the real question is whether the arrangement is so ordinary that it is universally recognized in that product field. Second, non-prominent features still matter. Design elements located on undersides, hidden surfaces, or less visible areas cannot simply be disregarded when assessing whether a design is commonplace.
This case concerns Design Application No. 2018304847571, filed through CreatorIP, relating to a round table design as illustrated below. The matter was reviewed in Reexamination Case No. 3F102027, resulting in Reexamination Decision No. 215711 issued on June 18, 2020.
The examiner rejected the application on the ground that the claimed design consisted only of geometric shapes and patterns commonly seen in the relevant product field and therefore failed to satisfy the "new design" requirement under Article 2(4) of the Patent Law. During reexamination, the applicant argued that several claimed features—particularly the upper ends of the table legs extending upward to the circumferential edge of the tabletop—were not commonplace in the furniture field. These structural arrangements created a distinctive visual effect not ordinarily associated with table designs. The original examiner maintained that such features appeared on less commonly viewed surfaces during normal use and therefore should not influence the assessment.
The Reexamination Board disagreed with the examiner. It clarified that: first, a "commonplace design" is one widely known to the public and one that naturally comes to mind when the product is mentioned. The claimed features were not elements that the public would ordinarily and immediately associate with tables, nor were they common in the table field. Second, and most importantly, whether a design feature appears on a less visible or uncommon-use surface is generally irrelevant in determining whether the design is "commonplace". Elements located on the edge of the tabletop, together with features beneath the table that are not easily visible during normal use, must still be taken into account when assessing compliance with Article 2. Their reduced visibility does not diminish their relevance in determining whether the design as a whole is “commonplace.”
undefined
Contact Us
No. 93, Ganjiang West Rd., Suzhou, 215002, P.R.C.
Business Area
Follow Us
