In replying to the review opinion, we shall first ensure that the modified application document is in conformity with the provisions of Article 26 (4) of the Patent Law, so as to facilitate the examiners to evaluate the novelty, creativity and practicality of the application document.How to avoid that the application documents do not conform to the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law?
1.The provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law:
The claim shall be based on the specification and clearly and briefly define the scope of the patent protection claimed.
2.The provisions about writing of claims in the Patent Review Guide
1)Based on the specification;
The claim shall be based on the specification, which means that the claim shall be supported by the specification.The technical solution protected by each claim shall be the technical solution that can be obtained or summarized by the technical personnel in the respective technical field from the contents fully disclosed in the specification, and shall not exceed the scope disclosed in the specification.
For example, in the case of such a broad claim as "Methods of affecting substances with high frequency electric energy", if the specification only gives an implementation of "methods of removing dust from gases with high frequency electric energy" and does not specify methods of affecting other substances with high frequency electric energy.Moreover, it is difficult for technicians in the technical field to determine or evaluate the effect of high-frequency electric energy on other substances in advance, so the claim is not considered to be supported by the specification.
The clarity of the claim is very important in determining the scope of the claim protection for an invention or utility model.
The claims should be clear, both in the sense that each claim should be clear, and in the sense that all the claims constituting the claim as a whole should be clear.
Firstly, the type of each claim should be clear.The subject name of the claim should clearly indicate whether the type of claim is a product or method claim.
Secondly, the scope of protection defined by each claim should be clear.The scope of protection of a claim should be understood according to the meaning of the words used. In general, the words in the claim should be understood to mean what the relevant technical area would normally mean.
The claim shall not use terms of uncertain meaning, such as "thick", "thin", "strong", "weak", "high temperature", "high pressure", "wide range", etc. Unless the term has an exact and accepted meaning in a particular technical field, such as "high frequency" of an amplifier.For terms that do not have an accepted meaning, if possible, more precise words recorded in the specification should be chosen to replace the above uncertain terms.The words "such as", "preferably", "in particular", "if necessary", and the like shall not appear in the claim. Because such words would define different scope of protection within a claim, and the scope of protection would be unclear.When such words appear in a claim, the examiner shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the use of such words would result in a claim being unclear and, if not, then allow it.
Finally, all claims as a whole should also be clear, which means that the reference relationship between claims should be clear.
The claims shall be brief, both in the sense that each claim shall be brief, and in the sense that all the claims as a whole shall also be brief.
For example, a patent application may not include two or more similar claims with substantially the same scope of protection. The number of claims shall be reasonable.A reasonable number of subordinate claims limiting the preferred technical solution of the invention or utility model are permitted in the claim.
The statement of the claim shall be brief and shall not include unnecessary description of the cause or reason, except the technical characteristics, nor shall it use commercial advertising terms.In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of the same content between claims, claims shall, where possible, be written in such a way as to cite the previous claim.