How to claim surface in relation to another object

[novobarro]

The invention has a base and a top, the base has a row of objects, the top has a surface aligned with the row of objects.  For example if the base is cylindrical and the row of objects are positioned across the diameter of the cylinder, the top would be semi-cylindrical, with the flat surface aligned with the row of objects. 

[still_learnin]

How to claim surface in relation to another object

OK, I'll bite. Most of my work is in software and digital logic, but I've written more than a few mechanical patents in my time.

The invention has a base and a top, the base has a row of objects, the top has a surface aligned with the row of objects. 

Starting point is:
A widget comprising:
a base having a plurality of objects disposed, in a row, thereon; and
a top having a surface aligned with the row of objects.

Definitely indefinite. I'm not sure how a "surface" "aligns". But your example sheds more light on what you mean by "aligned."

For example if the base is cylindrical and the row of objects are positioned across the diameter of the cylinder, the top would be semi-cylindrical, with the flat surface aligned with the row of objects.

Does the hypo really need 3D base and top?

Seems to me your cylinder example complicates things unnecessarily, since you appear to be referring only the end surfaces of the cylinder. Such that your example collapses into a circular base with objects positioned along the diameter of the circular base, then a top semicircle, where the flat segment is aligned with the row of objects.

That seems claimable.

But I'll bet your aiming for a claim that isn't limited to cylinders / circles, but would also handle polygons and probably also shapes made of combinations of flat and curved segments (what's the word for that?). Good luck with that

I think "aligned" is going to be problematic if you go broader than a row and a flat segment. Both of those are linear, so "aligned" makes (intuitive) sense to me there. Although ... I can easily envision two curves that are aligned, so nope, alignment isn't limited to linear.

Aligned here really refers to alignment in the vertical direction, right ... the top is "above" the row on the bottom, and above in a specific way, namely, so that the edge of the top is in [vertical?] alignment with the row. Maybe that additional level of detail makes it more definite. Is there always an "edge" that aligns with the row? Again, you called it a surface, I'm calling it an edge. I have trouble visualizing how a 2D surface "aligns with" a 1D row, whereas a 1D edge aligning with a 1D row makes sense to me. "Aligh" by itself is general enough to read on parallel alignment, but I think top and bottom exclude that.

FWIW, I view "top" and "bottom" as surfaces themselves, such that "top having a surface" is redundant. But perhaps you're using top and bottom to refer to elements, sections, assemblies, etc? If so, I would use "top" as a qualifier, not as an element itself.

I know folks who avoid vertical/horizontal (and even top/bottom) at all costs. If you're one of them, maybe longitudinal and transverse work better?

[mersenne]

You might "be your own lexicographer" by describing a figure in distinctive language, and then claiming in the same language.  Or claim functionally, if there is some functional reason that the parts are in that particular relationship.

FWIW, I tried to draw your "for example," and I couldn't figure out what it would look like.  I'm imagining that the base is like a tin can, and you put "objects" along the diameter aross one circular end of it.  Fair enough, but I don't see how a semi-cylindrical top can be placed on, over or around either the base or the objects.

[novobarro]

Seems to me your cylinder example complicates things unnecessarily, since you appear to be referring only the end surfaces of the cylinder. Such that your example collapses into a circular base with objects positioned along the diameter of the circular base, then a top semicircle, where the flat segment is aligned with the row of objects.

I'm trying to define the flat surface between the two semi-circular end surfaces of the top.  The base is a cylinder with a row of objects on the top circular end portion.  A top may have a circular base that fits over the base portion.  However, there is a surface between the two end surfaces of the top portion that align with the row of objects.  For example if top portion was originally a cylinder, you would cut the top portion where the row of objects align, leaving a semi-cylindrical top portion.

But I'll bet your aiming for a claim that isn't limited to cylinders / circles, but would also handle polygons and probably also shapes made of combinations of flat and curved segments (what's the word for that?). Good luck with that

That is correct, not limited to cylinders/circles.

Aligned here really refers to alignment in the vertical direction, right ... the top is "above" the row on the bottom, and above in a specific way, namely, so that the edge of the top is in [vertical?] alignment with the row.

yes alignment in the vertical direction so that the flat part of the semi-cylindrical top aligns with the row of objects.

The invention has a base and a top, the base has a row of objects, the top has a surface aligned with the row of objects.  For example if the base is cylindrical and the row of objects are positioned across the diameter of the cylinder, the top would be semi-cylindrical, with the flat surface aligned with the row of objects.

I'm reading "flat surface" to mean the surface between the two semi-circular ends.  If so, that is correct.

[novobarro]

could I claim a shape in terms of another shape?
base has a first shape and includes a row of objects
top has a second shape corresponding to the first shape cut along an axis of the row of objects.