0

The claim 2 has a list of means that apply to "the object" but it may be misconstrued that the last element in the list is not "intercepting" but rather "intercepting the object" in which case the other means would not apply to anything.

  1. A method for decelerating an object, the method comprising: limiting a speed and/or position of the object; enabling deceleration controls.

  2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: enforcing a speed limit resulting from the limiting, wherein the enforcing comprises at least one of: breaking, capturing, "intercepting" the object.

Questions:

  1. Can this claim be written in a better format?

  2. Perhaps a semicolon after the "intercepting" would be a good separator?

0

The way you have written claim 1 "enabling deceleration controls" reads like a second step. In claim 2 it is unclear as to if "intercepting" the object" is one of the ways of enforcing or is a second step. If it one of items in a list of ways of enforcing, then you need an "or". If it is a separate, second step, you need "; and".

|improve this answer|||||
  • In claim 2 the "intercepting" is one of the means but the phrase "the object" applies to all the means. In other words the intended meaning is: breaking the object, capturing the object, intercepting the object. – Jimski Aug 20 '19 at 18:14
  • warning - "means" has a very specific meaning in U.S. patent law. I would get into the habit of removing it from your vocabulary. – George White Aug 20 '19 at 18:23
  • George, thank you for the comment about means. Can you also answer the question about how to delimit or differentiate the last element of claim 2 so it is clear that term "the object" applies to all the listed means and is not by itself a mean. – Jimski Aug 21 '19 at 16:46
  • In "comprised of at least one of steel, aluminum and tin." The "and" shows that tin is one of the three things that might comprise the thing. – George White Aug 21 '19 at 17:52
  • Geaorge, the phrase "the object" is not one of the means. Using "and" in the claim 2 is as ambiguous as not using it because it is unknown if the last element in the list is "intercepting the object" or just the "intercepting" and phrase "the object" is the intended target to which all the listed means should apply. – Jimski Aug 21 '19 at 22:08
0

The method of claim 1, further comprising: enforcing a speed limit resulting from the limiting, wherein the enforcing comprises at least one of: breaking the object, capturing the object, intercepting the object.

However, it's also unclear where the speed limit comes from.

The deceleration controls are not related to anything in the claims , even though they seem to be technically.

The method is not technical according to European practice because I could perform the complete method without any technical means.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Under US patent law the method doesn't have to have any technical means, as long as it contains "significantly more" :-). For example some business methods are patentable in the US. The question, however, was not about validity of the claim but about its format and specifically about how to separate elements in the claim. – Jimski Nov 26 '19 at 22:58

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.