0

I understand the term plurality to mean many or multiple within patent law. Patent No. 9,598,822 uses the following sentence.

"The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more drone vehicles includes a plurality of the drone vehicles"

Does this mean: There could be many drone vehicles within each drone vehicle? When referring to one drone vehicle this could include many drone vehicles?

Any help greatly appreciated as this was recently granted and I would like to use the language as a template.

  • 1
    I'd prefer to leave answering up to a patent lawyer. However, I interpret this to mean that one or more can mean a larger number of vehicles, not that the vehicles contain vehicles within them. – Eric Shain Aug 15 '17 at 14:13
  • As part of a dependent for an independent claim stating "one or more drones", the dependency may be merely redundant surplusage, where "plurality" is obviously a subset of "one or more", where such subset doesn't include "one". Not clear why someone would claim it that way. Twice. There is no need or mention for any drone itself "including" within itself, any other drone, and it would be incongruous unless the specification actually teaches such a thing. – Upnorth Aug 15 '17 at 19:19
0

You have to take its meaning within the context of the patent as a whole, which I have not done. But, based on the sentence it could mean that there is are many drone vehicles included in the one or more drone vehicles.

0

Does this mean: There could be many drone vehicles within each drone vehicle? When referring to one drone vehicle this could include many drone vehicles?

I have gone through the specifications, in my opinion one or more drone vehicles described in the claim are with respect to the lead vehicle i.e., a single lead vehicle can communicate with single or multiple number of drones which it can send the coordinates of track location where repairs are to be done.

0

Traditionally 'plurality' in patent drafting practise has meant 'a number greater than 1'.

If you ask 'why not just say "more than one"', then I haven't a good answer.

In a number of cases, colloquial verbal expressions have encountered official objection of some kind during the examination of patent applications, and when this has become a regular occurrence for a particular word or phrase, it has then fallen out of use in favor of whichever circumlocution became known as successful in getting around the objection of the type. This may be such a case.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.