PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines
PART III EXAMINER CONSIDERATIONS COMMON TO BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY AND THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY
Chapter 10 Unity of Invention
Examples of use of the minimum reasoning
10.59E There exist multiple ways of providing “minimum reasoning”, in particular, for explaining why no technical relationship exists, where not otherwise apparent. The following examples showcase possible styles of reasoning. The examples below are simplified to comply with the format of these Guidelines but are based on the assumption that the (lack of) technical relationship is not immediately apparent. As the assessment of non-unity or the strategy of some Authorities might differ, these examples are intended for the sole purpose of illustrating possible styles of reasoning when an Authority raises a non-unity objection and provides minimum reasoning.
Claim 1: A system for inspecting cargo containers, the system comprising a processing unit, a vehicle and a sensor mounted on the vehicle, wherein the processing unit is configured to cause the vehicle to move along the cargo container and to collect data from the sensor.
Claim 2: A system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is a radiation detector.
Claim 3: A system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a drone.
Prior art: Document D1 discloses all the features of claim 1.
Identification of the common matter:
The common matter linking the subject-matter of claims 1-3 are the features of independent claim 1.
Reasons why it cannot provide a single general inventive concept:
The common matter is known from D1 therefore the common matter does not involve a same or corresponding special technical feature.
Reasons why there is no technical relationship between the remaining technical features of the inventions:
Claim 2: The remaining technical feature “radiation detector” is a means for identifying a hidden nuclear threat within a cargo container.
Claim 3: The remaining technical feature “drone” is a means for approaching the cargo closely so that the signal to noise ratio of the collected data can be improved.
The technical features “radiation detector” and “the drone” are different and have different technical properties. Hence they are not corresponding.
Conclusion:
Since neither the same nor corresponding special technical features are present in the claims, the inventions are not linked by a single general inventive concept and the requirements for unity of invention are not met.
Claim 1: Method of diagnosing disease X by genotyping at least one of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) SNP1, SNP2, SNP3 or SNP4.
Description: SNPs 1-4 are located in gene Y
Prior art: Method for diagnosing disease X by genotyping SNP5 in gene Y
Identification of the common matter:
The common matter linking the alternatives within independent claim 1 is a method of diagnosing disease X by genotyping at least one of SNPs (same feature). For some offices, SNP in gene Y also constitutes part of the common matter (corresponding feature).
Reasons why it cannot provide a single general inventive concept:
The common matter is known from prior art, therefore the common matter does not involve a same or corresponding special technical feature.
Reasons why there is no technical relationship between the remaining technical features of the inventions:
The alternatives (SNP1, SNP2, SNP3 and SNP4) are structurally unrelated. They are not of a similar nature.
Conclusion:
The application does not fulfil the requirements of unity of invention.
Claim 1: A surgical light device comprising a lighthead wherein the lighthead is configured to emit light of variable color.
Claim 2: A surgical light device comprising a mobile ground base, wherein the mobile ground base comprises a battery as power source for the surgical light device.
Description: The color of the illumination unit may be adapted to a particular tissue type of interest for better recognition. The use of a battery avoids a cabled connection to the mobile ground base which constitutes a tripping hazard in an operating room.
Identification of the common matter:
The common concept linking together the two independent claims is a surgical light device.
Reasons why it cannot provide a single general inventive concept:
This common matter does not comprise a single general inventive concept, based on same or corresponding special technical features, because this common matter is well‑known in the art and represents common general knowledge for the person skilled in the art.
Reasons why there is no technical relationship between the remaining technical features of the inventions:
The remaining features of claim 1 and claim 2 that make a technical contribution over the common matter are:
Claim 1 comprises the additional feature “lighthead configured to emit light of variable color”. This feature represents means for increasing recognition of particular details in the surgical field.
Claim 2 comprises the additional feature “mobile ground base with a battery as power source for the surgical light device”. This feature represents means for reducing tripping hazards in the operating room.
The technical features “lighthead configured to emit light of variable color” and “mobile ground base with a battery as power source for the surgical light device” are different and have different technical properties. Hence they are not corresponding.
Conclusion:
The claims do not fulfil the requirement of unity of invention.
Claim 1: A headgear with features A+B for use in steering a wheelchair.
Claim 2: A hydraulic lifting mechanism with features C+D for use in a wheelchair.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under Rule 13.1.
Group I: claim 1, directed to a headgear with features A+B for use in steering a wheelchair
Group II: claim 2, directed to a hydraulic lifting mechanism with features C+D for use in a wheelchair
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under Rule 13.1 for the following reasons:
The features of claim 1 and claim 2 are so different that they do not share any same or corresponding special technical feature(s) (Rule 13.2).
Some Authorities might further complement the above reasoning by analyzing the technical properties of the features of each invention:
Claim 1 comprises the feature of “a headgear with features A+B”. This feature represents means for allowing a person to steer a wheelchair merely by head movement.
Claim 2 comprises the feature of “a hydraulic lifting mechanism with features C+D”. This feature represents means for supporting a person to stand up from a wheelchair.
Conclusion:
The claims do not fulfil the requirement of unity of invention.
Claim 1: A shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle, wherein at least two of its bottom corners are internally provided with isolating walls forming a volume configured to receive wheels of a basket stacked above.
Claim 2: A shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle, wherein said shopping basket comprises a second handle located on one of its sidewalls, the second handle being extendable.
Prior art: Document D1 discloses a shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle.
The present application does not meet the requirements of unity of invention and there are two inventions covered by the claims indicated as follows:
Grouping of inventions:
Invention 1: Claim 1, which refers to shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle, wherein at least two of its bottom corners are internally provided with isolating walls forming a volume configured to receive wheels of a basket stacked above.
Invention 2: Claim 2, which refers to a shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle, wherein said shopping basket comprises a second handle located on one of its sidewalls, the second handle being extendable.
The reasons for which the inventions are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept, as required by Rule 13.1 are as follows:
Common subject matter:
The common subject matter linking both inventions is represented as a shopping basket comprising a body, two or more wheels and a foldable handle.
Common subject matter not new/obvious:
However, those technical features are already known and do not define a contribution over the prior art. Document D1 already discloses all those technical features.
No technical relationship among the groups of inventions:
The technical feature of claim 1 that makes a contribution over the prior art and can be considered as a special technical feature is: “at least two of its bottom corners are internally provided with isolating walls forming a volume configured to receive wheels of a basket stacked above”.
The problem solved by this technical feature can be construed as “isolating the floor of the basket from dirt carried by the wheels of a further basket stacked above”.
The technical features of claim 2 that make a contribution over the prior art and can be considered as special technical features are: “said shopping basket comprises a second handle located on one of its sidewalls, the second handle being extendable”.
The problem solved by those technical features can be construed as “facilitating the grip of the basket by users of different heights”.
Conclusion:
The special technical features solve different problems and as a result, there is not a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features (Rule 13.2). Therefore, the inventions are not linked by a single general inventive concept and the requirement for unity of invention is not met (Rule 13.1).