"Double filing on the same day" refers to the specific legal act whereby the same applicant files both an invention patent application and a utility model patent application on the same day (referring only to the filing date) for the same invention-creation. The newly revised Patent Examination Guidelines came into effect on January 1, 2026. In this revision, the examination rules concerning "double filing on the same day" have undergone significant changes. This article provides a brief explanation and analysis of the specific modifications.

The revised Patent Examination Guidelines strictly distinguish the treatment of "double filing on the same day" into the following two scenarios, with differentiated examination procedures prescribed:

1. Declaration Made at the Time of Filing

(1) Declaration: When submitting the patent application, choosing the option "Simultaneous Application for Invention and Utility Model Patents" on the request form is deemed to have declared for this situation.

(2) Examination Inclination: This declaration implies that the applicant actively indicates that the two applications pertain to "the same invention-creation." The examiner will generally not overturn this expression of intent by the applicant. The focus of the examination shifts from "whether they constitute the same invention-creation" to "how to select the final type of patent to be granted."

(3) "Selection" and "Abandonment": This revision eliminates the possibility, which existed before this revision, of obtaining both an invention patent and a utility model patent. After the revision, if an invention patent application is deemed to have prospects for grant after substantive examination, the examiner will issue a notification requiring the applicant to "abandon" the already granted utility model patent right within a specified time limit in order to grant the invention patent right. If the applicant does not abandon the utility model patent, the invention patent application will be rejected. This is one of the core aspects of the current examination guideline revision: the applicant can only obtain a patent right for one of the applications in a " double filing on the same day" scenario.

(4) Key Limitation: According to the revised Patent Examination Guidelines, even if the claims of the invention application have been amended, resulting in a scope of protection different from that of the already granted utility model, the applicant must still choose only one from the two. It is impermissible to retain the utility model patent right from the " double filing on the same day" while simultaneously obtaining an invention patent grant directed to the amended, different scope of protection. The rationale behind this provision is that since the applicant has already proactively declared that the invention patent application and the utility model application filed on the same day pertain to "the same invention-creation," to avoid double patenting, the applicant can, at most, obtain one patent right.

2. No Declaration Made at the Time of Filing

(1) Legal Risk: If, during the substantive examination of the invention application, the examiner determines that claims of the invention are identical to the scope of protection of the granted utility model claims, thus constituting "the same invention-creation," the invention patent application will be directly rejected pursuant to Article 9 of the Patent Law.

(2) Comparison of Consequences: The risk associated with this path is significantly higher than that of the path where a "declaration is made." Once rejected, the applicant not only loses the opportunity to obtain an invention patent but may also fail to secure long-term protection due to the inherently shorter term of the utility model patent, and the efforts previously invested in the invention application will be in vain.

Conclusion

With the implementation of the newly revised Patent Examination Guidelines, if no proactive declaration of " double filing on the same day" is made at the time of filing, once the invention patent application is determined to pertain to "the same invention-creation" as the already granted utility model, it faces the risk of direct rejection without any manner for remedy. Even in cases where a proactive declaration is made, a final "choice between the two"—the utility model patent right and the invention patent right—is mandatory, even if their scopes of protection have diverged through amendments. This marks the transformation of " double filing on the same day" from a "strategic tool" into a "regulated procedure."