Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hugh Johnson]

I'm trying to grasp the basics of patent construction and the archaic language is not helping me- talk about daunting! Can someone help with a fundamental? Lets say that I invented a mechanical device which retards the impact of a moving mass, initially conceived to replace the standard dock-bumper for small boats. Upon further reflection and some testing, it appears that this device could act as a moving-mass brake in a number of applications: scaled-up, it could reduce the impact of a large ship docking, scaled-down and mounted in a different housing it could be used to reduce the impact of almost any reciprocating machine or placed in an appropriate housing/mounting it could even be one helluva doorstop. Should the patent be written for a 'motion arresting device' or a 'motion arresting device for watercraft'? How broadly should the patent be written or intended?

Thanks,

Hugh

[Robert K S]

Be careful of the word "construction"; in our business, it means "interpretation" (as in, "to construe"), not "building" or "arranging".

The way patent practitioners usually do it is to describe the invention in the specification as elaborately and in as many embodiments as the applicant feels comfortable disclosing, and claim the invention as broadly as possible without the claims reading on the prior art.

[jc4patents]

Hugh -   

      I would show the basic structural arrangement in FIG. 1, describe
that and then claim that structure broadly in claim 1. Make sure you show only
the concept and not that of a specific use or application.
     I would then show how the
elements of FIG. 1 can be modified for use as a dock-bumper
for boats in FIG. 2, describe that and then claim that structure in a claim 2 that depends from
claim 1 (as it probably modifies the structure of claim 1).
       I would continue that process with dwgs and dependent claims for
b) large ship docking device, c) doorstop, and so on.
     The title should broadly correspond to FIG. 1 and be such as your suggestion
of "Motion Arresting Device" or better "Motion Arresting Structure".
     Basically, the application (and independent claims) is first directed to the structural
embodiment of FIG. 1 - the rest
of the application is directed to other "embodiments" - be sure to never use the word
"invention" anywhere - all versions (even FIG. 1) are embodiments.
     In the Examiner's first Office Action, he/she may state there are mulitple inventions
which increase the examination burden and require you to select one for examination.
If so, you would select that of FIG. 1 - if you can get it allowed over the cited art, you
can then add back dependent claims to the structures of FIG. 2  and so on.