Functional Language in Claims of a Chinese Patent Application

One way to draft claims for a method or a device is to describe the method or device by its function, in the form of means (or steps)-plus-function language.  However, one may want to avoid such an approach in US applications because once a claim is determined to include the means or step for language, the claim coverage is confined to the specific embodiments and examples disclosed in the specification, and equivalents thereof.  As such, claims drafted with purely functional language may have a more limited scope.  Further, the claim may have a higher likelihood to be considered invalid if the structural disclosure in the specification is not adequate.
Specific terms in the claim language may indicate that the claim has a high likelihood to be considered having means-plus-function language.  For example, the U.S. patent office lists terms including “means”, “step”, “for”, “configured to”, and “so that”.  See MPEP 2181.
In China, patent claims drafted in the functional language face similar treatment as in the U.S.  For example, in 2014, the Shanghai High People’s Court determined that claim 7 in Nokia’s patent included technical features defined by functional language (“terminal configured to…”).  The Court further determined that the claim is invalid because a person skilled in the art cannot implement the technical features based on the inadequate disclosure in the specification.
However, in Chinese patent applications, the specific terms indicating functional claim language are not exactly the same as in the U.S.  For example, the term “configured to/for” has a high likelihood to be treated as functional language.  The term “step”, on the other hand, is less likely to be treated as functional language.  Further, it is probably a good idea to avoid “function” or “functional” in the claim.  Notably, in the latest amendments to the Chinese “Patent Examination Guideline” (implemented 2017.4.1), the term “functional module” is replaced with the term “program module” in the section regarding claim drafting for software related inventions.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more