Claims comprising an entity of a previous claim (US practice)

Question

At the EPO we many times claim devices or methods that comprise in some way a device previously claimed, e.g.:

1. A tyre for a car comprising: A and B.
2. A car comprising a tyre according to claim 1.
3. The car of claim 2, further comprising C.
4. A method comprising: providing a tyre according to claim 1, and D.

Two independent claims of the same category are usually forbidden at the EPO, but claims 2-3 for instance would not be forbidden because it is a dependent claim, not an independent claim.

Is this way of claiming allowable in the US? If yes, will claims 1-4 be counted as three independent claims or just one?

Answer 1

I see 2 and 3 as dependent claims because they include all the limitations of claim 1 plus narrowing elements Even though they are not expressed in a more usual format.

I’m not sure this is definitive but since 4 is in a different statutory class from claim 1 I do not see it as dependent. I would analyze a dependent claim but re-writing it as independent, with all references claims written out.

Since one claim can’t be directed simultaneously to a physical thing (system, machine, item of manufacture) and to a method that exercise can’t produce a valid claim.

That argues 4 is an independent claim that references 1 for convenience of not writing out the definition of the tyre again rather than to be a narrower if of one.

The only mention I found so far to mixed-class claims referencing is this PatentlyO article. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/broader-dependent-claims.html. It addresses the opposite case without any conclusion that I saw.