Utility models and "unconstructive death"

For many, it is no secret that today obtaining a patent for a utility model no longer represents a procedure for obtaining a “quick patent”, but rather the opposite.
As the colleague in this post correctly disclosed the main issues, Rospatent and the Federal Institute of Industrial Property (FIPS) under its jurisdiction embarked on the path of holy war with solutions declared as utility models that relate to systems, complexes and other technical products that contain an aggregate united in a "whole" elements.

Why did I quote the phrase "one"? I would like to focus on the examination requirements, which are used in requests for utility models in analyzing the attribution of the declared decision to one device, within the meaning of the provision of art. 1351 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), clause 10.4.1. The Administrative Regulations for the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks to Execute State Functions for Organizing the Acceptance of Applications for Inventions and Their Consideration, Examination and Issuing of Patents of the Russian Federation for Invention examination of the application for a utility model.
These requirements are based on the analysis of the claimed technical solution and the principle of interconnection of its constituent elements in accordance with the requirements of GOST 2.101-68 “Unified system for design documentation. Types of products ", namely, do they fall under the list of assembly operations presented in GOST 2.101-68, in particular: make-up, joint, riveting, welding, soldering, crimping, flared, gluing, stitching, laying, etc. It is important to note that this list is open. These requirements are also reflected in the project “On Approval of Documents Required for the Provision of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property to provide state services in accepting applications for issuing a patent of the Russian Federation for an invention, their registration, examination and issuance of patents, their duplicates, for examination of applications for issuing a patent of the Russian Federation for an invention on the merits at the request of third parties, and on conducting an information search on applications for an invention, providing information on its results ”, located at . Despite the fact that the NAP under development is related to the rules for the examination of inventions, in terms of the product, its provisions will also apply to utility models, as is now practiced by the Chamber of Patent Disputes (PPS).
But no matter how the examination did not tighten the screws for applicants applying for useful models for systems and complexes, the use of the phrase “lack of constructive unity” has also been applied in cases of challenging already existing patents in the PPP.
There are only three such cases so far, here they are: the decision of the teaching staff of June 19 , 2014 , the decision of the teaching staff of June 27 , 2014 , the decision of teaching staff of November 24 , 2014 .
This technique is especially valuable in the latter case. The use of this approach removes from the person challenging the patent all the extra work on finding a prototype, assessing the novelty and industrial applicability, materiality of features, etc. It is enough just to state that at least two elements of the claimed formula do not meet the criterion of constructive unity and are elements that fulfill their intended purpose only, regardless of their location and role in the stated solution.
In essence, summarizing these cases, at the moment it is possible to “get rid” of any existing patent for a system or complex or other solution that includes two or more elements that do not meet these requirements.
However, here is an interesting thing. Despite such an arsenal of various normative legal acts, GOSTs, provisions and other documents that the FIPS expertise can handle, this still does not prevent obtaining patents for pseudo-uniform devices.
For example, a newly issued patent for a utility model RU 155583 or a training complex from patent RU 154990 , in which the system is simply declared in the forehead without a hint of the notorious constructive unity.
Well, of course, the human factor and other reasons serve all this because of the rules, but if you play by the rules, then everyone will play, but since ancient times it has been said that every branch of the field plays a game according to its own “rules”.
One way or another I will be glad to discuss this topic.