JAPAN PATENT OFFICE
Project: C466
April 15, 2014
IPC: A61B
Rapporteur Report
Ref :
Annex 37: EP comments
Annex 40: EP comments
Annex 42: EP comments
Annex 43: RU comments
JP thanks EP and RU for posting comments (Annex 37, 40, 42 and 43). With regard to
the issue on A61B 5/117 which was reserved in the previous Rapporteur Report (Annex
39) and new issues which were raised by EP and RU after posting of the previous
Rapporteur Report, Rapporteur comments are presented hereunder in order of the IPC
scheme presentation.
1. On A61B5/117
Rapporteur thanks EP for providing the comments (Annex 42) in order to answer our
question (Annex 41).
(1) After reading the EP comments (Annex 42), JP clearly understands that
“identification of persons based on characteristics included in the movement of their
bodies” is covered by scope of the A61B 5/117 title in the EP proposal (Annex 37).
JP
supports the EP proposal (Annex 37) for the A61B 5/117 title except for minor
modifications.
In order to clarify that “identification of persons based on patterns or
shapes of their bodies such as fingerprints” is also covered by A61B 5/117, JP proposes
to adopt the expression of “e.g. using impression techniques or behaviour patterns”
which EP proposed (Annex 42).
(2) Also, JP proposes that, when making the said title change, the IPC definitions for
subclass A61B should be modified to clearly reflect that “identification of persons based
on characteristics included in the movement of their bodies” is covered by A61B 5/117.
(3) As for newly established subgroups, JP proposes to establish subgroups for
non-specific features (5/1171, 5/1180 and 5/1185; refer to the scheme below) in addition
to the EP proposal (Annex 37). While significant advancement of technology is
expected regarding identification of persons, we will not be able to provide adequate
classifications for new emerging technology if we develop subdivisions based only on
today’s technology.
(4) The reference pointing to “identification means for patients specially adapted for use
in surgery or diagnosis” as proposed by EP (Annex 37) is a reference pointing to
application oriented place; thus, it is a non-limiting reference and should be presented in
the scheme definitions. The references pointing to “dental impression cups or
articulators A61C9/00, A61C11/00” in the current IPC scheme, and to “recognition of
fingerprints or faces by data processing G06K9/00” as proposed by EP (Annex 37) are
both informative references; thus, both are non-limiting references and should be
presented in the scheme definitions.
For presenting these references, JP proposes to
establish a scheme definition for A61B 5/117.
5/117
･Biometric identification of persons, e.g. using impression techniques or behaviour
patterns (identification of persons by analysing their voice or speech G10L 17/00)
5/1171
･･Identification of persons based on shapes of their bodies or parts thereof
5/1172
･･･using finger-printing
5/1174
･･･using foot-printing
5/1176
･･･using face pattern
5/1177
･･･using vessel pattern
5/1178
･･･using dental data
5/1180
･･Identification of persons based on behaviour of their bodies or parts thereof
5/1185
･･Identification of persons based on physiological signals
5/1186
･･･using electrocardiography [ECG] or electroencephalography [EEG]
2. Places where A61B 19/00 and A61B 19/02 are transferred to
[RU] (Annex 43)
3. In R proposal (clean version) there are no indications where the deleted groups A61B
19/00 and A61B 19/02 are transferred to.
[JP Proposal]
JP thanks RU for pointing out this issue.
A61B 19/00 should be transferred to A61B
34/00 or 90/00. Likewise, A61B 19/02 should be transferred to A61B 50/00 or 54/00.
The Scheme Proposal was modified accordingly.
3. The Number of dots in the title of A61B 34/25
[EP] (Annex 40)
The marker group 34/25 should rather be a one dot group next to 35/20 than a two dot
group indented under 35/20, since this group covers also markers which are not directly
used for surgical navigation, e.g. palpable markers, markers for registration, etc.
[RU] (Annex 43)
1. RU does not agree with the EPO to have group A61B 34/25 as one-dot entry. In our
opinion group A61B 34/25 “Markers for surgical navigation or for tracking or guiding
surgical instruments” should remain as two-dot group. The markers which are not
directly used for surgical navigation may be mammographic, radiopaque, echogenic,
palpable, i.e. detectable markers. There exist also markers of the other kind which are
intended for operating field mapping. It would be more appropriate to relate the said
markers to group A61B 90/00. So we propose to add these kinds of markers to A61B
90/00 as follows:
A61B 90/00 …wound edges; detectable markers; operating field mapping markers.
[JP Proposal]
(1) JP supports the RU proposal to maintain A61B 34/25 as two-dot group. JP does
not favor the EP proposal to make A61B 34/25 one-dot group. The reasons are as
follows.
･As EP pointed out, A61B 34/25 covers those markers which are not directly used
in surgical navigation. It is already clear from the title “Markers for surgical
navigation or for tracking or guiding surgical instruments” and is also
consistent with the two-part title for A61B 34/20 of “Surgical navigation systems;
Devices for tracking or guiding surgical instruments, e.g. for frameless
stereotaxis.” Therefore, in order to clarify that A61B 34/25 covers markers not
used in surgical navigation, it is not necessary to make A61B 34/25 one-dot group.
･Palpable markers as exemplified by EP appear to be unrelated to either
computer-aided surgery or surgical manipulator. Therefore, they are outside the
scope of A61B 34/00. If so, making A61B 34/25 one-dot group would not include
palpable markers anyway.
(2) JP does not support the RU proposal to add the expression “detectable markers;
operating field mapping markers” to the A61B 90/00 title. A61B 90/00 covers
diagnostic or surgical markers not covered by other places, and this is already clear
from the current title “Instruments, implements or accessories for surgery or diagnosis
not covered by any of the groups A61B 1/00-A61B 54/00, e.g. for luxation treatment
or for protecting wound edges.” Furthermore, each type of marker usually has a
specific usage and is therefore classified in a place covering the usage. It is difficult to
imagine diagnostic or surgical markers which are not related to any specific usage and
consequently are not covered by any of the groups A61B 1/00-A61B 54/00.
Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly refer to marker in A61B 90/00 title.
4. On deletion of A61B90/09
[EP] (Annex 40)
The new group 90/09 “characterised by optical parts - - - “is not based on CPC, and
appears not to be properly arranged under the higher group 90/08 “characterised by
non-optical aspects”. Further it is not clear to our experts what kind of documents would
be covered by the scope of this group and which optical parts could be specially
adapted for surgery. Our experts would therefore recommend not to create this group.
[RU] (Annex 43)
2. We support the EPO opinion not to create group 90/09 since the optical parts of
microscopes should not be arranged under the group 90/08 “characterized by
non-optical parts” and they are already covered by group G02B 21/00.
[JP Proposal]
JP thanks EP and RU for posting comments. The scope of A61B 90/09 which was
originally proposed was unclear. Therefore, A61B 90/09 was deleted from the latest
Scheme Proposal.
[END]