Print

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

[Patentstudent]

An invention on which I am presently working comprises a thin (diameter approx. 3 mm) copper rod that is more or less straight. Being more or less straight does not mean that it does not have some slight bends and buckles. To put it more exact the straightness of the rod can be defined by the fact that it will normally fit inside a cylinder with an internal diameter of 5 mm without having to deform the rod.

Will claiming something like: A device comprising a straight rod made of copper ........  cover the more or less straight rod as described above? If not, what would be the best way to claim this rod in this case?
Another example would be the use of the word 'perpendicular' for two elements placed at an angle that may be anywhere between 80 and 100 degrees.       
What is in general the best way to go about claiming such features?

Thank you in advance for your advice.

[Wiscagent]

The usual approach is to claim "a substantially straight rod" or something like that.  And in the description and figures define what you mean by "a substantially straight rod".

And when you are defining "substantially straight" consider why the rod should be substantially straight.  What if the rod were bent, or shaped like the letter omega?  That thought process might lead you to define the straightness of rod in terms of angles, rotational inertial, volume swept when the rod is rotated, or other terms.

[Oh, Crud]

The usual approach is to claim "a substantially straight rod" or something like that.  And in the description and figures define what you mean by "a substantially straight rod".

I've used a similar approach in the past in these situations.  One other comment here (directly relating to this hypo, expand concept as needed) is to consider the problems associated with length, or failure to define what general range of lengths is intended.  This is why Wiscagent's other suggestions can be really important to consider ("might lead you to define the straightness of rod in terms of angles, rotational inertial, volume swept when the rod is rotated, or other terms"). 

One way the OP mentions for defining substantially straight is that a "straight" rod is one which, if 3 mm, can be inserted into a tube with an ID of 5 mm (presumably without undue force (can't forget to define "undue" = I guess defined as force that would cause deflection of the rod from a first alignment to a second alignment during insertion, etc.)). 

Okay, Houston, we have hypo definition.  But what length is the rod/tube?  In the universe for these rods, a circa 10 mm long rod fitting the definition can to appearances be much more bent than a 10 meter long rod fitting the definition.

For your perpendicular question, I have used "substantially perpendicular" with a definition in the spec such as you propose, saying that "substantially perpendicular" means (+/-) some amount (I've actually seen it described as (+/-) 45°, which is kind of funny if you think about a supposedly perpendicular member being allowed a full 90° sweep...).

[Patentstudent]

Thank you both for your helpful comments.

I am located in Europe and in a few cases (i.e., not consistently) the examiner commented that the word 'substantially' (used in for example 'substantially straight') does not belong in a claim. Your comment suggests that it must be a personal opinion of the examiner rather than a rule. I will have to go back to the reports to check whether it  was the same examiner who always had this comment.

[Oh, Crud]

I am located in Europe and in a few cases (i.e., not consistently) the examiner commented that the word 'substantially' (used in for example 'substantially straight') does not belong in a claim. Your comment suggests that it must be a personal opinion of the examiner rather than a rule. I will have to go back to the reports to check whether it  was the same examiner who always had this comment.

Sorry, I had not realized you weren't drafting for U.S.  I also have had inconsistent results in EPO and also in some individual member states, with terms such as "substantially", "about", etc. in my claims once entering national phase outside of the U.S., and sometimes have to delete such "wiggle" words from claims.  I have been told by various local counsel that it does no harm to remove the "wiggle" words because a "thumb rule" is normally applied by member state courts such that one does not escape infringement by being slightly outside of the exact, literal recitation of the claims.  Something like the doctrine of equivalents here in the U.S. (But I haven't personally seen this tested in any state's courts)

What about making your description match the above discussion (saying what is meant by "straight", etc.) but leaving out the wiggle words from the claims?

Or another approach might be (particularly if you will eventually enter the U.S.) to have the wiggle words in your priority document, then strip them out only on request? 

But I'm getting out of my depth here.  Hopefully Bartmans will trip over this thread. 

[Patentstudent]

Thank you.
I have removed those words on those occasions where the examiner objected against them, but the originally filed documents are still in the file of the patent office and may still become useful some day.

Lately, I have started to define the extent of the meaning of certain words (like straight and perpendicular) in the descriptive section, and then just used those words in the claims. I hoped that there would be an easier way out, because now I have to iefine whether perpendicular can refer to an angle of for example anywhere between 80 and 100 degrees or between 85 and 95 degrees.         

[khazzah]

I am located in Europe ...

This board is heavily weighted with US practitioners, so any poster who is asking about non-US law should probably say that.

[smgsmc]

Here's a similar thread:

http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,17501.0.html

[Patentstudent]

Thank you smgsmc.
The other thread is indeed also interesting and relevant.   

[NJ Patent1]

Patent Student.  I agree with oh, crud.  Many US Examiners also take issue - rightfully in my view - with "substantially", "essentially", and similar terms.  Why not do away with "substantially straight" or "straight" in the claims and simply recite "a rod"?  This appears to be a mechnaical case.  There will probably be figures.  One or more of these figures will show a structural element that looks like a piece of uncooked spaghetti or linguinie, and denominated as a "rod" in the description.  If the dimensions and tolerances - including "straightness" - are in any way critical to the construction and function of the device (or, in US, related to best mode) you have to disclose this.

You might say something like "Rods useful in the practice of the present invention are (are preferably) straight rods.  A rod is considered straght if [fill in your definition]."  You have some good ideas and have received good suggestions for a definition of "straight".  You might also consider defining straight in terms of a maximum deviation from a straight line drawn between the ends of the rod.  You can easily biuld in some fall-back positions. 

Good luck and happy claim drafting!

[Patentstudent]

NJ Patent1, thank you for your advice/thoughts. Yes, with the figures and the detailed description of the invention I will be able to clearly define the tolerances in the straightness of the rod.