We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
7

Hire a professional. 1) Neither question you ask can be answered with the information you gave, and even if you posted your application I doubt anyone would be willing to wade through it to give you an opinion for free. You have no idea how much effort what you are asking for requires, or what level of detail in the information you supply is required to ...


7

When filing a patent, the goal of the Independent Claim(s) is to define the invention as broadly as possible. Your goal is to obtain Freedom to Operate, with enough "white space" around your Preferred Embodiment that competitors cannot change minor details to avoid licensing your patent. Dependent claims provide paths to multiple embodiments of your ...


4

It's purely a stylistic difference, based on how the drafter thinks the claim would be most clearly described. Notably, there is no scope difference. The real benefit is to allow you to explain each element with proper antecedence. It's less obvious in your claims, but consider this example: A system comprising: a first device, configured to send a message ...


4

Is it okay to use "optionally" in a claim? No, for two reasons. The purpose of an independent claim is to define the scope of the protection that you seek. Including an optional feature does not serve this aim (since you intend for it not to be a limitation on the scope), and so should not be included. Moreover, it could unintentionally be an implicit ...


4

You include the claims you haven't yet claimed and want to claim. You can't have the same claim word-for-word in more than one patent. It would be double patenting. If you didn't care about making claims that are fully supported in the parent, you would not file a CIP, but rather a "new" application with no connection to the previous application. A CIP is ...


3

They did it to get one narrow patent issued early while continuing to fight for a broader patent. The continuation application (15/851,879) was filed with the narrowest claim and filed with an optional costly process that provides accelerated examination. IBM got a notice of allowance on the continuation but the parent (15/429,121) application is still ...


3

Prior art anticipates if each claim element of the later patent is found in the prior art. Here, each claim element of claim a system which detects X is found in prior art and therefore prior art anticipates claim. So yes, assuming system of prior art = system of claim and x of prior art = x of claim. Without more in the claim it would rejected under 102.


3

You can draft an independent claim for each system, and an independent claim for each method, as you mentioned. The thing is that not every jurisdiction accepts more than one independent claim in a single application, or more than one independent claim per category in a single application; sometimes there are exceptions whereby you can include additional ...


3

In general yes, that is what dependent claims are used for. However, the base system in the independent claim will need, on its own, to be patentable. Also dependent claims add elements/constraints/specificity to the claim they depend from. If "either has no stages" means that claim 2 has something less than claim 1, that will not fly. Separately, ...


3

NO A dependent claim, by definition, is a narrowing of the claim from which it depends. The independent claim could just have "a lion" and a dependent claim could say, "where the lion is found [or not found] in a Brazilian zoo. Separately, in your example, if "not found in a brazilian zoo" is needed to get around prior art, then a ...


2

You wouldn't want to file identical claims. Identical claims will receive a "Statutory Double Patenting" rejection. On other note why to pay fee twice on claim already filed and pending. Unlike the "Non-Statutory Double Patenting" rejection referred to by Gary, the you can not overcome the Statutory Double Patenting rejection with a terminal disclaimer. ...


2

Independent claims can be extremely long. Refer to the patent for the game "4 Square in the Air", which contains a number of sub-clauses that describe the set-up of a playing field, apparatus and some rules of the game. The more specific an Independent Claim is, the more likely it is to pass examination on the first pass. However, providing claims that are ...


2

Yes, that is permissible and defined in paragraph 6.18. For instance, US 7,756,129 is a grant with 401 claims, although they are not all in serial as in your example. Keep in mind that writing dependent claims in serial creates easy targets for invalidating large numbers of your claims. ¶ 6.18 Series of Singular Dependent Claims A series of singular ...


2

Could they reject it because an equipment to detect X already exists (no matter if they use spoon in their dependent claims)? Yes, Claim 1 will be rejected if the examiner finds prior art showing that equipment to detect X already exists (and you have a duty to bring such prior art to the examiner's attention if you know of it). Dependent Claim 2 will not ...


2

As Macas answer already says, you can't have dependent claims that protect anything outside the scope of the independent claim. What you can do would be saying “... controlled by an input device, preferably a touch screen,“. This gives you a way of having a dependent claim (touchscreen) in the independent claim as an optional element. So basically two ...


2

Is it essential that the computing device has a touchscreen? If not, then it should not be in your independent claim. It is generally irrelevant whether it is your most likely implementation or not, if your goal is to maximise your scope of protection. That is, by including this feature, you are limiting your protection to a single embodiment. While this ...


2

In the US, there is an extremely punitive fee of USD 820 for each multiple dependent claim. Moreover, since the US isn't so strict with added matter arising from combining claims independent of each other, there is not a huge benefit in multiple dependencies anyway. In contrast, the EPO doesn't charge for multiple dependent claims, but does generally ...


2

I agree with DonQuiKong's answer in that your dependent claim seems to be broader than your independent claim, which is not appropriate. I will therefore limit myself to your later question about "can be accomplished". Importantly, "can be accomplished" is not really a useful limitation, since you're only stating that it's possible, not that it actually ...


2

Your dependent claim, if I understand your question correctly, won't be allowable for two reasons: 1: A dependent claim may not leave out any limitation of the independent claim it depends on. Your first claim says “by drag and drop“ the second says “claim one plus something other than drag and drop“. Combined, your second claim says “by drag and drop and ...


2

I did my own research and found out that: Among 3,019,895 utility patents published 04/01/2005 through 16/01/2018, 1,707 patents (%0.057) have at least one independent claim starting with 'The' article. Thus, the chance is about %0.057.


2

Do disparaged embodiments lack claim support? Probably. I will preface this by saying that, much to my frustration, I could not find a case on all-fours with what you are proposing. It could well a novel situation1. But there are two well-established principles that are related: claims are interpreted to exclude disparaged subject matter, and claims ...


2

The specification explains the invention with detail and with multiple embodiments and variations on those embodiments. It does not necessarily single out the novel aspects from the rest of the description. Claims define what you are claiming to be yours. The analogy used is of a prospector defining the boundaries of a mining claim. If somebody does ...


2

One on-line resource is Patent Drafting for Beginners: A prelude to patent claim drafting at ipwatchdog. The "bible" of the mechanics of claim drafting is Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting. It is about $500 on Amazon. You might find a version from a couple of years ago for sale somewhere. And Patent it Yourself would be a good start. One exercise ...


2

Practice, sure. Someone correcting the claims would help though .. You could try the old european patent attorney exam questions pertaining to claim analysis and design. There are courses and such too. It's not exactly easy to learn on your own in my opinion.


2

First, the phrases are incomplete because they're missing the conjunction word "and" or "or". The effect should be a rejection by the Examiner under section 112 for being indefinite. To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004). Regarding the term "combination thereof" itself, it's a very ...


2

Written as a long group, the claim will be invalidated by finding something in the prior art with anything on the list (and otherwise satisfying the claims). Written individually, only the single claim with that item will be invalidated and the rest will still be enforceable.


2

Yes, 'marks' lack antecedent basis. You have positively declared one mark, with the possibility of more marks*. Your dependent claim must introduce additional marks if you want to switch to the plural. How you go about it is up to you and the rest of the claim language. One possibility is 'at least a first guide mark' in the independent claim, with a ...


2

The words "comprising" to refer to an open list and "consisting of" to refer to a closed list are terms with well-settled meaning in patent law. Perhaps the term "inclusive" has well recognized meaning in chemical or pharmaceutical technologies. In my drafting for high-tech, I would avoid using the term "inclusive" to ...


2

George White's response is correct. I just want to add a couple remarks. Some jurisdictions enforce the Doctrine of claim differentiation (the US and Germany at least), some others do too but in a lesser degree. Many examiners tend to skim the dependent claims to see if they spot something out of place once the independent claims are deemed to be allowable, ...


2

I an an inventor, not a lawyer, so this is my best understanding. The specific criteria is whether you identify at least one claim which wouldn't have been there without your contribution. Ideally you can prove this by referencing your lab documentation or other permanent record. You really need to do something inventive. Preparing documents or even ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible