Is the claim 2 mixing method and machine and if it is how would you rewrite it to avoid it?

1. A method for doing things comprising: step 1; step 2.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one step of the method
   is performed with an assistance of an online computer system.

No, you are not mixing different categories if that is what you mean. A step of a method may be carried out by a device, machine, etc., and that limits the scope of the claim, which refers to a method not a machine. You could even draft a claim depending upon claim 2 in which you are claiming a method but you further limit the online computer system, for example it comprises a multi-core processing unit.

| improve this answer | |
  • Does your comment apply to US or European patent practice or both? – Jimski Aug 19 '19 at 16:04
  • Both. And in the event that a US or a European examiner objects the claim on the grounds of lack of clarity (because one can never rule out such possibility, but it is unlikely unless the examiner is inexperienced), you should argue that it is perfectly clear because the method is inherently limited by how you are carrying out the step, in this case using an online cpu system. My answer would be different if the patent application were to be filed with the national patent office of some Latin American countries. – the Europeist Aug 19 '19 at 18:21

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.