LogoPatentFig AI
  • Start Creating
  • Tools
  • Blog
  • Pricing
LogoPatentFig AI

AI-powered patent figure generation

YouTubeYouTubeEmailStripe ClimateXX (Twitter)
Tools
  • Patent Drawing Generator
  • Figure Checker
  • Convert
  • Vectorize
  • DPI Enhance
  • All Tools
Solutions
  • Patent Drawing Software
  • Design Patent Software
  • Patent Illustrator
  • Services vs Software
  • Solve Intelligence Alternative
Resources
  • Blog
  • Patent Drawing Examples
  • Drawing Requirements
  • Drawing Standards
  • Free Templates & Checklists
  • Patent Drawing Glossary
  • AI Patent Tools
  • Developers
  • API Docs
Company
  • About
  • Pricing
  • Trust Center
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
© 2026 PatentFig AI All Rights Reserved.
ManualFig.ai badgeFeatured on Twelve ToolsFeatured on Wired BusinessFazier badgePatentFig AI - Featured on Startup FamePatentFig AI | dang.ai

Multi-Office Patent Drawing Guide

Patent Drawing Requirements by Office

Compare patent drawing requirements across USPTO, CNIPA, EPO, JPO, KIPO, and PCT/WIPO filing workflows. Use this page as the central map for office-specific rules, common mistakes, and filing-ready drafting guidance.

Open PatentFig AIUSPTO requirements checklist

Six-Office Comparison Table: USPTO vs CNIPA vs EPO vs JPO vs KIPO vs PCT

Paper size, minimum margins, line rules, photographs, and numbering compared side by side. Every number was re-checked against the official primary sources on 2026-07-21. Cells we could not verify as hard numbers stay qualitative — always defer to the current official text.

RequirementUSPTOCNIPAEPOJPOKIPOPCT
Paper sizeA4 21.0 × 29.7 cm / US Letter 21.6 × 27.9 cmA4 · 21.0 × 29.7 cmA4 · 21.0 × 29.7 cmA4 · 21.0 × 29.7 cmA4 · 21.0 × 29.7 cmA4 · 21.0 × 29.7 cm
Minimum margins (top / left / right / bottom)≥ 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 / 1.0 cm≥ 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 / 1.5 cm≥ 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 / 1.0 cmFramed as a drawing area, not margins: figures must fit the 170 × 255 mm area on A4Margins per the prescribed form (별지 제17호서식) — defer to the official text≥ 2.5 / 2.5 / 1.5 / 1.0 cm
Usable drawing areaA4 ≤ 17.0 × 26.2 cm · Letter ≤ 17.6 × 24.4 cmNot separately specified — keep figures inside the required margins≤ 17.0 × 26.2 cm≤ 170 × 255 mmPer the prescribed form — defer to the official text≤ 17.0 × 26.2 cm
Line and color rulesSolid black lines (India ink or equivalent); gray or color lines are not accepted by defaultUniform, clear, sufficiently dark lines; no alterations; engineering blueprints not acceptedBlack, sufficiently dense, uniformly thick lines; colour/greyscale accepted for e-filings since 1 Oct 2025 (OJ EPO 2025, A49)Black only, no coloring; solid lines ≈ 0.4 mm, leader lines ≈ 0.2 mmIndelible dark black, uniform, sharply defined lines without coloring (per the official form text)Durable, black, uniformly thick, well-defined lines without colorings (Rule 11.13(a))
Photographs / color figures allowed?Photos only if the sole practicable medium; color figures OK in design cases, petition required in utility casesUsually black ink; color figures may be filed "when necessary" under the 2023 Guidelines — check the current official textColour and greyscale drawings accepted for electronic filings since 1 Oct 2025; must stay clear at 300 dpiNo color; photographs in lieu of drawings allowed (e.g. micrographs)Coloring not allowed under the form text; for photographs, defer to the current official textRule 11.13 requires drawings without colorings; photographs only where a drawing cannot show the subject — defer to the official text
Reference numerals≥ 0.32 cm (1/8 in) high; the same part keeps the same numeral across all viewsNumerals must stay consistent across the figure set; no verified height figure — defer to the official text≥ 0.32 cm high (Rule 46(2)); consistent throughoutConsistent reference signs per 様式第30; no verified minimum height — defer to the official textConsistent numerals across figures; for sizing, defer to the official form≥ 0.32 cm high (Rule 11.13(h)); consistent throughout the application
Figure numberingConsecutive Arabic numerals with the "FIG." prefix; a single view is not numberedFigures numbered consecutively (图1, 图2 …) — defer to the official text for detailsFigures numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals, independent of sheet numberingOnly 【図1】-style item names are accepted in e-filingsFigures numbered per the official form (도1, 도2 …)Arabic numerals, consecutive and independent of sheet numbering (Rule 11.13)
Legal basis & official link37 CFR § 1.84专利审查指南 (2023) · CNIPA 格式要求Rule 46 EPC · OJ EPO 2025, A49特許法施行規則 様式第30(出願の手続)특허법 시행규칙 별지 제17호서식PCT Rule 11 (11.5 · 11.6(c) · 11.13)

Sources: the last row links the governing text for each column. Numbers were re-checked against 37 CFR 1.84 (eCFR), PCT Rule 11 (WIPO), Rule 46 EPC, CNIPA’s official filing-format guidance, JPO’s 様式第30 filing guide, and the KIPO Enforcement Rules forms on 2026-07-21. Before filing, always confirm against the current official text.

USPTO
US utility patents, design patents, and software filing workflows.

Core differences

  • • Strong emphasis on black-and-white line quality, margins, reference numeral legibility, and 37 CFR 1.84 compliance.
  • • Design patent filings also depend on broken-line strategy, full-view coverage, and surface shading discipline.

Common mistakes

  • • Crowded sheets, inconsistent numbering, weak line contrast, and missing design views.
  • • Raster exports that degrade when converted into filing PDFs.
Read USPTO guideGenerate figures
CNIPA
Chinese filing programs that need stricter black-and-white drafting discipline.

Core differences

  • • Cleaner lines, stricter anti-color and anti-gradient expectations, and tighter tolerance for noisy CAD exports.
  • • Reference numeral consistency and margin control matter across the full figure set.

Common mistakes

  • • Residual color, fuzzy grayscale exports, over-shading, and inconsistent labels across views.
  • • Treating CNIPA as a light variation of USPTO instead of a separate drafting target.
Read CNIPA guideGenerate figures
EPO
European prosecution teams that need drawing clarity aligned with EPC filing practice.

Core differences

  • • High-clarity line art, logical figure sequencing, and reference signs that remain readable after reproduction.
  • • The EPO rewards disciplined figure sets that align tightly with the written description.

Common mistakes

  • • Assuming a US-ready figure set is automatically optimized for European practice.
  • • Weak internal consistency between drawings and specification terminology.
Read EPO guideGenerate figures
JPO
Japanese filing teams working on utility, mechanical, and design-oriented figure sets.

Core differences

  • • Clear line presentation, stable view relationships, and careful treatment of labels and figure hierarchy.
  • • Design-related filings benefit from very consistent multi-view geometry and restrained presentation.

Common mistakes

  • • Reusing globally drafted figures without checking local expectations around arrangement and clarity.
  • • Loose multi-view consistency in products with complex contour changes.
Read JPO guideGenerate figures
KIPO
Korean filing teams that need clean technical figures and predictable set consistency.

Core differences

  • • Strong emphasis on readable drawings, organized labeling, and coherent figure sets for prosecution efficiency.
  • • Software and system-diagram filings still need disciplined presentation, not generic slideware visuals.

Common mistakes

  • • Overloaded diagrams, mixed styling across pages, and labels that drift between figures.
  • • Copying presentation graphics directly into filing material without patent formalization.
Read KIPO guideGenerate figures
PCT / WIPO
International applications that need a clean baseline before national phase entry.

Core differences

  • • PCT filing quality depends on reproducible drawings, stable numbering, and conservative formatting choices.
  • • A well-prepared PCT figure set reduces downstream rework when entering USPTO, EPO, CNIPA, JPO, or KIPO.

Common mistakes

  • • Treating PCT as a generic placeholder rather than a real drafting checkpoint.
  • • Deferring figure cleanup until national phase, which multiplies later cost and inconsistency.
Read PCT guideGenerate figures
Shared Rules Across Major Offices
These are the baseline principles that travel well across most utility and design patent filing programs.

• Prefer black-and-white line art over color, gradients, or soft shadows.

• Keep margins and drawing areas disciplined so figures remain reproducible.

• Maintain reference numeral consistency across every related view.

• For electrical, circuit, and software inventions, explain functional relationships as patent figures rather than importing raw engineering schematics or presentation slides.

• Use block diagrams for system boundaries and separate flowcharts for ordered method steps.

• Avoid crowded layouts by splitting overloaded content into additional figures.

• Treat figure sets as one system, not isolated pages with drifting styles.

How to Use This Guide
Start broad here, then move into the office page that matches your immediate filing path.

1. Read the office summary that matches your next filing.

2. Open the dedicated office guide for detailed drafting rules.

3. Generate or refine your figures in PatentFig AI.

4. Recheck consistency before final export and filing submission.

How to Cite This Page
You are welcome to cite this page in articles, memos, or product comparisons — just credit the source.

PatentFig AI, "Patent Drawing Requirements by Office: USPTO vs CNIPA vs EPO vs JPO vs KIPO vs PCT", https://patentfig.ai/patent-drawing-standards, updated 2026-07-21.

Content on this page may be freely quoted and referenced. Please credit "PatentFig AI" and link back to this page.

Change Log
  • 2026-07-21 — Added the six-office side-by-side comparison table; every number re-verified against the official sources (37 CFR 1.84, PCT Rule 11, Rule 46 EPC, CNIPA format rules, JPO 様式第30, KIPO Enforcement Rules).

FAQ

Practical questions about multi-office patent drawing compliance.