How to write a claim for this?

Patentstudent · 02-20-17 at 04:37 PM

I'd appreciate any suggestion for the main (independent) claim for the following invention:

A device that is placed between a first end of a towing cable and a first car that is towed by a second car to which the second end of the towing cable is attached, wherein the device disconnects the towing cable from the first car when a third car or any other object pushes the towing cable sideways.

Of course, the actual invention is something different, but I expect that a claim for this hypo will provide an instructive example.

Thank you.

still_learnin · 02-20-17 at 05:45 PM

I'd be more inclined to reply if you took a stab at writing the claim yourself, then asked for critique by forum members like myself.

But that's just me.

Patentstudent · 02-20-17 at 05:57 PM

still-learnin, thank you for your reply.
I understand your position but I am really confused about how to tackle this one.

NJ Patent1 · 02-21-17 at 02:00 AM

student: First a question: is the "device" a), an integral part of the tow cable, or b) an add-on or "aftermarket" device? I assume a) and give it a shot.

A tow cable (for ... = optional) comprising:
   a) a cable member having a long axis and first and second ends, first and second ends each having a hook detachably attached thereto via a respective disengagement member, and

   b) a disengagement sensor, fixedly integrated between the first and second ends, in [mechanical, electrical, radio?] communication with at least one of the disengagement members,

   wherein the disengagement sensor communicates a disengagement signal to the at least one of the disengagement members in response to a sensed force applied perpendicular to the long axis of the cable, causing ...

mybrainisfull · 02-21-17 at 05:50 PM

Personally, I prefer to hone in on the essence of the invention, and avoid incorporating any intended use into the claim (e.g. attaches to cables; car 2 towing car 1; hit by car 3).

For example:

1. A coupling apparatus comprising elements x, y and z, configured to engage when linear tension is applied between x and y, and disengage when a predetermined force is exerted upon z.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the angle of force required for disengagement is between 45 and 90 degrees relative to the linear tension between x and y.

I guess the risk of doing it that way would be enlarging the universe of pertinent prior art, because "couplings" could be used for many things other than tow cables. So, if the "essence" of the claimed subject matter (i.e. the coupling apparatus) does not appear to be novel in itself, you might have to weave other elements into the claim (e.g. tow cables) to hopefully limit the scope of inquiry for prior art, and at least give you some ability to argue prior art references when viewed in combination (e.g. a coupling apparatus + tow cables) would not be obvious (or operable as claimed).

Just my 2c. I'm not an attorney.

still_learnin · 02-21-17 at 07:48 PM

Quote from: Patentstudent on 02-20-17 at 05:57 PM
still-learnin, thank you for your reply.
I understand your position but I am really confused about how to tackle this one.

Hmm ... perhaps I was too harsh.

Upon re-reading your original post, I see you did make a stab at the claim ("a device that is placed ..."). Sounds like what you really wanted was some help in how to structure the claim -- maybe how to divide up the elements? how to express functional language?

I agree with what the other two posters have said. I'll echo/restate one of the points already made: think carefully about what is your invention and what is the operating environment of your invention, and try to positively recite only the former, even if it's necessary to refer to the latter. Here, you want to make sure you don't actually claim the car.

Quote from: mybrainisfull on 02-21-17 at 05:50 PM
1. A coupling apparatus comprising elements x, y and z, configured to engage when linear tension is applied between x and y, and disengage when a predetermined force is exerted upon z.

I like the way mybrainisfull has translated your "disconnects when pushed sideways" function into something much more precise, yet kept mostly functional language (rather than adding structure). This is key to claim drafting. Inventors often give us either extremely detailed claims or extremely broad claims. I think practitioners can add a lot of value by thinking carefully about the middle ground.

Quote from: mybrainisfull on 02-21-17 at 05:50 PM
I guess the risk of doing it that way would be enlarging the universe of pertinent prior art, because "couplings" could be used for many things other than tow cables.

The other concern with this broad functional language is enablement. That is, if you claim in terms of conditions for engage/disengage, yet only describe one structure which operates this way, your claim might not be enabled for its full scope.

This part of the middle ground I referred to earlier. The practitioner should work with the inventor to a) describe the structure the inventor has already thought of to accomplish the function and b) come up with alternative structures that could be used, and discuss all of these in the spec.

inventurous · 02-22-17 at 12:14 AM

Well despite the lack of detail this still looks like fun, so I'll give it a crack.

A decoupling device, comprising:
at least one vehicle engagement element; and
at least one tow cable coupling, wherein the at least one tow cable coupling comprises a release mechanism configured to disengage the tow cable when the tow cable is connected, under load, and substantially deflected.

Load and (degrees of) deflection would have to be clearly described in the spec. Drafted with the assumption that you don't want disengagement when the cable is connected but not loaded (e.g., during connection).

still_learnin · 02-22-17 at 12:52 AM

Quote from: inventurous on 02-22-17 at 12:14 AM
Well despite the lack of detail this still looks like fun, so I'll give it a crack.

A decoupling device, comprising:
at least one vehicle engagement element; and
at least one tow cable coupling, wherein the at least one tow cable coupling comprises a release mechanism configured to disengage the tow cable when the tow cable is connected, under load, and substantially deflected.

This is one of the things I love about claim drafting: so many different ways to capture the same invention.

Terms like "element" and "mechanism" are likely to trigger treatment under 112 Sixth paragraph.

Patentstudent · 02-22-17 at 10:35 AM

Thank you all.
I very much appreciate your support.

NJ Patent1, it is envisioned that the device can be supplied both as an integral part of the towing cable and as an add-on device.

still_learnin, indeed, for me it is amazing to see the different suggestions for capturing the invention in a claim.
This is really very helpful.

still_learnin · 02-22-17 at 06:08 PM

Quote from: Patentstudent on 02-22-17 at 10:35 AM
NJ Patent1, it is envisioned that the device can be supplied both as an integral part of the towing cable and as an add-on device.

Then I'd draft two different independent claims, one to the towing cable and one to the add-on.

IMHO, the best claims for mechanical inventions have a mixture of structural elements and functional language. Too much structure makes it easier to design around. Too little structure and you run into problems with intended use, prior art from unrelated fields, means-plus-function treatment, and sometimes even enablement problems.

Patentstudent · 02-23-17 at 09:38 AM

Quote from: still_learnin on 02-22-17 at 06:08 PM

Then I'd draft two different independent claims, one to the towing cable and one to the add-on.

IMHO, the best claims for mechanical inventions have a mixture of structural elements and functional language. Too much structure makes it easier to design around. Too little structure and you run into problems with intended use, prior art from unrelated fields, means-plus-function treatment, and sometimes even enablement problems.

Thank you.

Warren Barquist · 03-22-17 at 01:46 AM

Can I insert a graphic (drawing) into a claim (in order to claim an element)? Or must I use words alone?

Patentstudent · 03-22-17 at 11:17 AM

Warren, you "hijacked" my post for your question.

It's o.k.

You can attach all the drawings you want/need to the application and discuss the structure and function and define the elements of the invented device/apparatus in the specification.
You can then use the terms as defined in the spec to refer to and claim the relevant features of the device/apparatus.

wildkrazyguy · 04-06-17 at 11:49 PM

you can claim "the element of Fig. 3" and include a Fig. 3 but you are limiting your claims to only that exact figure and if anyone changes any single component they are likely not to infringe. Much better to decide what is novel about the element and claim that.

lazyexaminer · 04-07-17 at 12:14 AM

Quote from: wildkrazyguy on 04-06-17 at 11:49 PM
you can claim "the element of Fig. 3" and include a Fig. 3 but you are limiting your claims to only that exact figure and if anyone changes any single component they are likely not to infringe. Much better to decide what is novel about the element and claim that.

You most certainly cannot do that (reference a figure in the claim), unless it is some exceptional situation where there is no practical way to define the invention with words. In the US at least...

News: