Case study of official website-Song Ziliang

 Not supporting is a common quoted law in the notice of examination opinions. The usual review logic is that feature A is defined in the claim, and content B is recorded in the specification (the content cited by the examiner is usually related to the technical principle or technical effect). Therefore, in the absence of defining feature A by b, the technicians in this field have reason to suspect that it contains technical solutions that cannot achieve technical effects, so the claim cannot be supported by the specification.

Thinking of reply:

For the scheme that the examiner thinks can't be supported, we should first consider whether it has technical effect and whether the technical effect can be confirmed from the contents recorded in the manual. If so, it is argued that there is no reason to doubt that all the technical solutions within its general scope can achieve technical effects and can be supported by the instructions. If not, it needs to be modified.

Case 1

It relates to the technical feature in claim 1 that "the outline of the pattern of the purification layer or the purification unit in the purification layer is shaped into a symmetrical trapezoid".

The examiner points out that Claim 1 states that "the outline of the pattern of the purification layer or the purification unit in the purification layer is shaped into a symmetrical trapezoid". That is, Claim 1 contains the parallel technical scheme that "the purification layer is shaped into a symmetrical trapezoid" and "the outline of the pattern of the purification unit in the purification layer is shaped into a symmetrical trapezoid". However, it is stated in the specification that "the fluid flows into the inlet 11 and flows along the purification layer 10. During the flow along the purification layer 10,

The fluid passes through the purification unit 14, where it is purified. When the flow of the fluid passes through each of the purification units 14, small particles (i.e., having a size smaller than the characteristic purification size of the purification unit) will be trapped/captured by the purification unit 14, and some of the flow and small particles will flow out through the separation outlet from this position. The remaining fluid and particles leave the purification layer 10 and the fluid purification device through the concentration outlet 13. The separation outlet is designed to allow as much fluid as possible to leave in order to maximize the concentration of particles that can be concentrated by the purification device. However, the amount of fluid leaving the concentration outlet 13 should be large enough to allow the fluid flow to be substantially constant on the purification layer 10. This is conveniently achieved by reducing the cross-section over the area of the purification layer 10. "

As can be seen from the above, due to the reduction of the cross section in the area of the purification layer, the liquid flow is substantially constant on the purification layer. Therefore, for the technical scheme of "the outline of the pattern of the purification unit in the purification layer is shaped into a symmetrical trapezoid", without limiting the shape of the purification layer, it is reasonable for those skilled in the art to suspect that it contains a technical scheme that cannot achieve the technical effect that the liquid flow is substantially constant on the purification layer. Therefore, Claim 1 is not supported by the specification and does not conform to Article 26.4 of the Patent Law.

Analysis: Referring to the attached figure of case 1, it is also recorded in the instruction that "the purification layer 10 further includes a plurality of purification units 14 arranged in a pattern". It can be seen that only defining the outline of the purification unit can not ensure that the channel width is reduced to compensate for the loss of liquid, and it is impossible to achieve "making the liquid flow substantially constant on the purification layer". In other words, the examiner thinks that the technical effect of the unsupported scheme cannot be confirmed from the contents recorded in the manual.

Therefore, the examiner's opinion is reasonable, and it is necessary to modify Claim 1.

Case 2

It relates to the technical feature in Claim 1, that is, "a pressing suppression part is arranged on the surface of the housing so as to surround the convex part and is used for suppressing the pressing of the convex part on the detected object, wherein a groove part is arranged between the convex part of the light-transmitting component and the pressing suppression part".

The examiner points out that Claim 1 states that: "A pressing suppression part is provided on the surface of the housing so as to surround the convex part and is used for suppressing the pressing exerted by the convex part on the object to be detected, wherein a groove part is provided between the convex part of the light-transmitting member and the pressing suppression part", However, it is clearly stated in the specification: "Let the height of the convex part 40, the height of the pressing inhibiting part 60 and the height of the bottom surface of the groove part 42 in the direction DRH orthogonal to the housing surface 22 of the biological information detection device be HA, HB and HC, respectively, and HA>HB>HC, so that when a load is applied by the load mechanism, first, the convex part 40 contacts the surface of the detected object, thereby obtaining initial pressing, and then. Further, when the convex portion 40 and the pressing suppressing portion 60 contact the surface of the object to be detected in this way, the surface of the object to be detected does not contact the bottom surface of the groove portion 42 with a low height, as shown in G1 and G2 of fig. 10B. Therefore, the reduction of MN ratio caused by unstable contact state can be effectively suppressed. "

Therefore, in this application, in order to realize the suppression of pressing and suppress the instability of contact state, the description specifically defines the relationship among the height of the convex part, the height of the pressing suppression part and the height of the groove part, while Claim 1 does not specifically define the relationship among the height of the convex part, the height of the pressing suppression part and the height of the groove part. It is impossible for technicians in this field to determine and evaluate in advance how to set the height of the convex part, the height of the pressing suppression part and the height of the bottom surface of the groove part to realize pressing suppression and suppress the instability of the contact state. For example, when the height of the pressing suppression part is the highest, it first contacts with human skin, so that the convex part does not press on the skin, let alone pressing suppression, or the height of the pressing suppression part is equal to that of the convex part, so that the pressing suppression effect cannot be achieved. Therefore, Claim 1 is not supported by the specification and does not conform to Article 26.4 of the Patent Law.

Analysis: The description clearly states in the summary of the invention that "in this embodiment, a pressing suppression part for suppressing the pressing exerted by the convex part on the object to be detected is provided so as to surround the convex part, and a groove part is provided between the convex part and the pressing suppression part of the light-transmitting member. If such a groove is provided, the dynamic change of the contact state around the convex part can be suppressed, or the load can be concentrated on the convex part at the time of initial pressing, etc. Therefore, the deterioration of the signal quality of the detection signal due to the change of the contact state and the like can be effectively suppressed. " The contents of the instruction cited by the examiner also clearly state that "and, even when the convex part 40 and the pressing inhibiting part 60 contact the surface of the object to be detected in this way, the surface of the object to be detected does not contact the bottom surface of the groove part 42 with low height as shown in G1 and G2 of fig. 10B. Therefore, the reduction of MN ratio caused by unstable contact state can be effectively suppressed. "

As can be seen from the above disclosure, the arrangement of the pressing part 60 and the groove part 42 is the key, that is, as long as the pressing suppression part is provided and the groove part is formed between the pressing suppression part and the convex part, the dynamic change of the contact state between the convex part (detection part) and the surface of the object to be detected can be reduced or eliminated, so that the deterioration of the signal quality of the detection signal due to the change of the contact state can be effectively suppressed. According to these records in the specification, it can be known that all technical solutions within the scope defined in claim 1 can achieve technical effects. That is, the examiner thinks that the unsupported scheme can be confirmed from the contents recorded in the specification.

Therefore, the examiner's opinion is unreasonable and needs to be argued.

Suggestions on the debate:

Actually, the examiner thinks that the specific embodiment in the specification contains the height relationship, so it is necessary to define the height relationship feature in Independent Claim 1: "When the height of the convex part, the height of the pressing suppression part and the height of the bottom surface of the groove part in the direction orthogonal to the shell surface are respectively HA, HB and HC, HA>HB>HC".

In reply, first of all, we should argue that the technical effect of the scheme that the examiner thinks can not be supported can be confirmed from the contents recorded in the manual, and there is no reason to doubt that it can not be realized.

In addition, for the example of the examiner's query that the technical effect can't be achieved, "For example, when the height of the pressing suppression part is the highest, it first comes into contact with human skin, so that the convex part doesn't press on the skin, not to mention pressing suppression, or the height of the pressing suppression part is equal to that of the convex part, so the pressing suppression effect can't be achieved", and a targeted reply is needed.

Targeted responses can include the following aspects:

1) It is pointed out that whether it can be supported by the specification is judged from the perspective of a person skilled in the field. Thus, the obviously unreasonable extreme situation is excluded (for the first questioning situation listed by the examiner, "For example, when the height of the pressing suppression part is the highest, it first contacts with the human skin, so that the convex part does not press on the skin, let alone the pressing suppression"). For example, it can be argued that, based on the principle of the present invention, the person skilled in the art knows that the fact that the pressing suppression part contacts first does not mean that the pressing suppression part and the convex part can not be pressed at the same time, but the pressing suppression part can play a suppression role as long as the present invention has a state in which they are pressed at the same time. Obviously, a person skilled in the art will not carry out detection in the extreme state of "only pressing the restraining part, but not pressing the convex part on the skin".

2) Regarding the technical effect, clarifying that the non-optimal scheme does not mean that it has no effect at all. For example, for the second query situation ("the height of the pressing suppression part is equal to that of the convex part, the pressing suppression effect cannot be achieved"), the person skilled in the art can know that when the height of the pressing suppression part and the convex part are equal, the pressing suppression part can certainly play a suppression role. It can be seen that the examiner's questioning opinion is unreasonable.

3) The provisions of laws or review guidelines can be further enumerated to increase persuasiveness. For example, according to the provisions of the review guide, "if there is good support in the specification and there is no reason to doubt that the invention or utility model can not be implemented within the scope of the claim, even if the scope of the claim is wide, it is acceptable." Therefore, the applicant believes that claim 1 of the present invention is such a situation and can be supported by the specification.