Is it legal for a phrase “each of zero or more logic blocks”?

[SteveO]

I would revise the phrasing below to:

doing A with one or more X;
determining if one or more Y exist;
upon determining that one or more Y exist, doing A with the one or more Y;

Formally it adds an extra step (which someone could try to get around by saying their invention does not do the determining step); but the determining step appears inherent and inevitable in the process. (Even if it's a passive determination, such as receiving a signal from detector D that one or more Y exist, getting that signal is still a determination.) So I don't really see that it's limiting.

1. Method..., comprising:
...
doing A with one or more X;
doing A with one or more Y if the one or more Y exist; <-- is it acceptable from point view of an Examiner?
..

People have commented here in the past that "if" is a bad word to use in claims.  "When ... then" is apparently the preferred phrasing.

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi StevenO,

Until now there are 4 word patterns for a same claim and they are listed here from the worst to the best in my preference:

a.
1. A method..., comprising:
...;
doing A with one or more X and zero or more Y;  <-- original, zero or more Y is not acceptable
...

b.
1. A method..., comprising:
...;
doing A with one or more X;  <-- acceptable, but "step determining" must be done in claim 1 for interference case,
determining if one or more Y exist;
upon determining that one or more Y exist, doing A with the one or more Y;
...

c.
1. A method..., comprising:
...;
doing A first time with one or more X;   <-- it skips the step: determining one or more Y
...

2. The method 1 further comprising,
doing A second time with one or more Y. <-- same idea as a., but it has a disadvantage

The disadvantage is that if there are claims following claim 2, claim 2 must be satisfied by all claims in the claim chain starting from claim 3 . Not a very important disadvantage, because claims 1 and 2 are enough to win in an interference case.

d.
1. A method..., comprising:     <-- my most favorable pattern
...;
doing A with one or more XY;  
...

2. The method 1 further comprising:
dividing each of the one or more XY into 2 categories:
a. a X; or a Y.      

Later the one or more X and the one or more Y can be used to refer to their precedents: X or Y.

It is beyond the idea in a., both X and Y can be zero or more, and there is at least one of either X or Y.

d) can be done only when the specs has the definition XY. In my situation, my application has not been filed and any claim change would be reflected in the specs.

Thank you.

[smgsmc]

Hi mersenne,

Thank you very much!

I will use your recommended "assigning" absolutely!

Latest:
1. A method, comprising:
...
assigning a plurality of states to one or more state groups;
...

Weng, here's a general writing tip:  always keep in mind who your audience is.  For an audience of mathematicians, "adding zero to a quantity" and "dividing a quantity by one" are perfectly valid operations.  But for a more general audience, "adding salt to a recipe" typically does not include the operation of "adding no <zero> salt to a recipe"; and "cutting a cake" typically does not include the operation of "cutting a cake into one cake <not cutting the cake at all>".  Similarly, "dividing 10 objects into groups" typically means "dividing 10 objects into two or more groups" and does include the operation of "dividing 10 objects into one group".  Whereas "assigning 10 objects to one or more groups" flows naturally.

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi smgsmc, mersenne,

Thank you for your valuable instructions!!!

If phrase in a claim is smelling not well, change it to the extent that smells well!

I have learned a lot from this post.