Preferred scenario 1: My device has a processor and some electronic gadget wired to it. The processor makes the gadget do something.
Sneaky scenario 2: My electronic gadget may be modified to connect to a, say, Raspberry Pi or Arduino (with GPIO or USB) and a user can code their own software or have it supplied by a sneaky manufacturer.
The gadget alone does not do anything nor solve a technical problem.
Here is my attempt to cover this in a dependent claim:
- The device of Claim 1, wherein said processor is expected to manifest as part of an existing processor so capable, either physically or logically, as a result of deliberate software included with or added to said existing processor.
Referring to my previous question Patent boilerplate for a processor embodiment (not enablement)?, I'd like to add a dependent claim to the effect of the "processor" may be the processor of some "existing hardware/processor/microcontroller".
In other words,
I'm trying to cover the case where a manufacturer designs around my claims by not supplying a processor in a sneaky way. Is there some phrases I can use to this effect? I've tried searching USPTO, but this scenario might not be common.