Overcoming Patent Rejections for Lack of Inventive Step in Vietnam: Arguments and Amendments usually arises against the background where the examiner holds the company’s solution to be an obvious combination of two known documents, the hardest refusal to reverse where the original specification never recorded an unexpected technical effect.
Rather than a generic overview, the content below follows overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal across four layers: the governing instruments, their application to a real file, an implementation sequence that does not get sent back, and answers to the questions clients ask most about overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal.
The legal framework governing overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal
Reading overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal through the Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/2005/QH11 (amended in 2009, 2019, 2022 and by Law 131/2025/QH15) with Decree 65/2023/ND-CP, the first distinction is whether the right arises by registration or automatically, and on that distinction the lesson is that inventive step under the Law on Intellectual Property requires that the solution could not be easily created by a person of average skill from the disclosed documents, so the argument must attack the examiner’s motivation to combine and the technical effect the combination did not predict, not merely repeat that the solution never appeared whole When preparing the file for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, the company should test this point against the issue of how do we argue when the invention is said to lack inventive step from the outset, because waiting for the receiving authority to request supplements usually delays overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal by weeks against plan.
Substantive examination is a door the application must ask to open: Article 113 of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended by Law 131/2025/QH15) fixes a thirty-six-month request window plus the examination fee, and overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal must be scheduled around that door because the examiner holds the company’s solution to be an obvious combination of two known documents, the hardest refusal to reverse where the original specification never recorded an unexpected technical effect In the practical handling of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, this detail is where files are most often sent back, because companies prepare the part on with what documents is an unexpected technical effect proven from the experience of a previous deal while the licence conditions of the current case have already changed.
Most disputes around overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal ultimately return to three provisions of the Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13: Article 3 on freedom of commitment, Article 418 on breach penalties and Article 419 on damages for breach of contract, and whoever drafts for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal must write so that hastily narrowing the claims to overcome an inventive-step refusal can cut away the very feature giving the patent its commercial value, leaving a granted patent that no longer covers the product competitors actually sell One practice point to remember about overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is that every document signed around the issue of how is the scope of protection narrowed to overcome a refusal must be consistent with the particulars registered at the business and investment registries, because a single small discrepancy can stall the next step of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal.
Analysing the questions investors ask around overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal
The question of how do we argue when the invention is said to lack inventive step sounds simple yet decides the true cost of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, because getting this point wrong forces the company back into amending registrations, re-finalising tax or renegotiating with partners when everything seemed done. On the question of with what documents is an unexpected technical effect proven, what the investor needs is a conclusion immediately applicable to overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal rather than a general principle, and that conclusion must rest on the original instruments in force, not on oral summaries passed between project teams.
Answering the question of how is the scope of protection narrowed to overcome a refusal correctly starts from the company’s own registration documents in overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, because the same question put to two different registration files receives two different procedural answers. The question of should the application be withdrawn and refiled with a better specification is where the hidden cost of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal usually sits, because handling it superficially spawns another round of registration amendments and explanations that no project team budgeted for at the start.
Placing overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal beside a similar completed deal shows the decisive difference rarely lies in the parties’ will, but in whether the core handling principle, namely that inventive step under the Law on Intellectual Property requires that the solution could not be easily created by a person of average skill from the disclosed documents, so the argument must attack the examiner’s motivation to combine and the technical effect the combination did not predict, not merely repeat that the solution never appeared whole, was respected or skipped from the start.
A safe implementation sequence for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal
- Review the complete original file relating to overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, including signed contracts, licences in force, accounting books and obligations still open, to fix the legal picture before committing to anything towards a third party.
- Test the plan for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal against the company charter, the current enterprise registration certificate and investment registration certificate, recording clearly which contents need internal approval or registration adjustment before implementation.
- Settle in advance the open issues clients ask about most around overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, in particular how is the scope of protection narrowed to overcome a refusal, through a clear written agreement or resolution instead of leaving them to each party’s default reading when a dispute erupts.
- Carry out the registrations and change notifications relating to overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal at the correct authority in their proper dependent order, and update the bank holding the investment capital account if the deal’s cash flows pass through it.
- Close out overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal with a completion file under a handover record, containing the approved registration documents, tax vouchers and a list of obligations surviving the transaction, retained for the statutory period for later inspections.
Risks to anticipate in overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal
The most distinctive risk of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal lies in the following point. Hastily narrowing the claims to overcome an inventive-step refusal can cut away the very feature giving the patent its commercial value, leaving a granted patent that no longer covers the product competitors actually sell. A second risk of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is that companies usually price only the visible surface work such as signing and registration, while the tax, labour and licence obligations running underneath are the part that can return as back-tax or penalties years after overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal completed. A further risk of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is the chain effect from the issue of with what documents is an unexpected technical effect proven: one unsettled point at the head of the chain amplifies into registration delay, tax figure discrepancies and lost partner confidence at its end.
The right way to read overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is as a dependency chain, not a single procedure: the right basis with the wrong file still fails, and the right file in the wrong sequence still gets returned. The cheapest investment in overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is therefore always review time before signing, and the dearest cost is always repair after the parties have committed to each other and to the state authority.
Frequently asked questions: overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal
How do we argue when the invention is said to lack inventive step?
The question of how do we argue when the invention is said to lack inventive step must be answered against the specific position of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal: the company should check its charter, licences and compliance history together before choosing an option, rather than deciding on a single factor. More specifically, inventive step under the Law on Intellectual Property requires that the solution could not be easily created by a person of average skill from the disclosed documents, so the argument must attack the examiner’s motivation to combine and the technical effect the combination did not predict, not merely repeat that the solution never appeared whole.
With what documents is an unexpected technical effect proven?
For the question of with what documents is an unexpected technical effect proven, the safe principle for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is not to commit towards a third party before the legal basis and the handling plan are locked in writing, because an oral commitment is worth almost nothing once a dispute arises. More specifically, the examiner holds the company’s solution to be an obvious combination of two known documents, the hardest refusal to reverse where the original specification never recorded an unexpected technical effect.
How is the scope of protection narrowed to overcome a refusal?
On the question of how is the scope of protection narrowed to overcome a refusal, the first thing to clarify for overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal is whether it belongs to the basis layer, the file layer or the sequence layer, because each layer needs a different kind of evidence to answer and carries a different risk if answered wrongly. More specifically, hastily narrowing the claims to overcome an inventive-step refusal can cut away the very feature giving the patent its commercial value, leaving a granted patent that no longer covers the product competitors actually sell.
Should the application be withdrawn and refiled with a better specification?
The question of should the application be withdrawn and refiled with a better specification is usually asked by clients at the end of preparing overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, yet experience shows it should be answered at the beginning, because its answer changes how every remaining step is arranged. More specifically, procedurally, the company must close out the whole file chain of overcoming an inventive-step patent refusal, from the written agreement and registration with the competent authority to document retention, because a single missing link is enough to have the entire plan sent back to the start.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council