0

The invention is a tool that has a least one of feature Y on a first location. Then in preferred embodiments have feature Y in a second location and also different possible configurations and numbers of Y on the tool.

My question is how do I introduce Y correctly and still have it make sense with the dependent wording? I find many articles I read say you must preferably use "a" or "an" to introduce an element. What is the best most clear way to make an examiner happy?

Example 1: Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location and a second location; and at least one Y on the first location.

Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.

Example 2: Independent claim: Tool, comprising: X with a first location, and a second location; and a Y on the first location.

Dependent claim: The tool defined in claim 1, wherein at least one said Y is also located on the second location.

Example 3: Or should I say: at least one of a Y? That way there is the proverbial a, or does that even matter or help?

1

Assuming each of the two locations can only have a single location, you do not want to say there is at least one Y in location one. Example 2 is better. Also, the independent claim does not need to set the stage for the dependent claim by reciting a second location. It could be seen as narrowing claim. Looking at an an infringer that had one Y at some location a jury might say "I do not see that it has any such thing as a 'second location' so it doesn't have all elements."

Without the second Y somewhere, 'second location' as a placeholder in the independent claim is not needed and potentially harmful. Just bring in the second location in the dependent claim.

  • The locations I mentioned features of element X, first side, second side, distal tip end, proximal end and the like. In Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting "Parts or features of elements: Where relevant to functionality, the features of an element (the size, shape, geometry, construction material, constituent parts, apertures, orientation, etc.) should be mentioned" – Pro Se Hole Jan 5 at 14:28
  • My main concern was using "at least one of" instead of "a". I know "a" after comprising can be construed as possibly plural, but I was trying to being more clear. Alas. – Pro Se Hole Jan 5 at 14:54
  • Do you want to allow for more than one Y per "location" or not? – George White Jan 5 at 21:18
  • Yes sir. There can be more than one Y per location area. X has two sides. Y can be anywhere on one of two main sides of X; which side does not matter, but at least one. Having multiple Y on both sides and at more specific locations on each side, such as toward the tip or toward the bottom of each side, adds utility. I plan to add that extra utility in the dependent claims. – Pro Se Hole Jan 6 at 11:29
  • 1
    In that case - you have "a" Y at a first location in the independent claim. If that + other characteristics is not enough for patentablity you might need include "and a second Y at a second location" or specify the location of the single Y to achieve novelty and non-obviousness. – George White Jan 8 at 4:25

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.