I have to say that this "model minimization" emphasized by the physics teacher will remind me consciously or unconsciously in all aspects of my future study and work, especially when facing some difficult problems. In fact, this "model minimization" is similar to Occam's razor principle "Don't add entities unless necessary". Occam's razor principle can also be roughly expressed as: when there are multiple interpretations of a fact at the same time, the interpretation with the least premise or precondition should be adopted or adopted. In other words, we must adopt a minimized or minimized demonstration model to reach a more credible conclusion.
So what is the relationship between this "model minimization" or "minimization model" and the writing of patent claims we are going to talk about today? Before answering this question, we must first understand what is the "claim" and what is the relationship between the "claim" and the "technical solution"? And what is the key to writing "opinions"?
Legally speaking, patent right (including other intellectual property rights) is an exclusive right of the obligee, not a property right. If it must be said to be equivalent to a kind of property right, it is also a special or incomplete property right. Because real right, as a right or absolute right to the world, has two basic powers: dominance and exclusiveness. Comparatively speaking, although the patent right is also a kind of right to the world and an absolute right, it is only absolute exclusiveness, but not absolute domination. The "claim" in the patent actually requires the protection of this "right". But this "right" is not the right to use or dominate, but the right to prohibit or exclude, not the right of the right holder to do something himself, but the right of the right holder to prevent others from doing something.
The "technical scheme" is the essence and written expression of the protection required by the "claims". Usually, in the technical scheme expressed in the claim, the technical problems to be solved and the technical effects to be achieved are implicitly expressed, but not actually written in the body of the claim, that is, the written expression of the claim only takes the general expression of technical means as the main content. Technical feature is the concrete expression of technical means, just as "word" is the concrete expression of "sentence".
In order to meet the principle of comprehensive coverage, an issue that the applicant must consider when writing the claim is how to distinguish which technical features in the technical scheme of the claim are necessary and which are unnecessary, and how to ensure that unnecessary technical features are not written into the claim?
Therefore, the key to writing a "claim" is how to judge whether one or several technical features are unnecessary technical features. In other words, what are the criteria for judging necessity and non-necessity?
In practice, the method of "logical main line" proposed by Unitalen teacher Wang Baojun in his new book "Practical Course of Patent Application Document Writing-Logic, Attitude and Practice" is a very effective method to determine the characteristics of necessary technology and unnecessary technology. Its main meaning is to find the "logical starting point", that is, to find the technical problems targeted by the invention idea or technical scheme, and then string the technical problems, technical means and technical effects on the same line. As long as a technical feature is continuous and interlocking on this "logical main line", that is, it is an indispensable technical feature in technical means for the technical problems to be solved and the technical effects to be achieved, or the established technical problems cannot be solved without this technical feature, then this technical feature is a necessary technical feature, otherwise it is an unnecessary technical feature.
It is based on the author's long-term application and thinking of "model minimization". The author thinks that the same effect can be obtained if we consider and solve the above problems with "minimal thinking". That is to say, without considering the logical main line and continuity, all the above problems can be solved as long as we grasp the point of "minimizing thinking". But fundamentally speaking, the "minimal thinking" actually serves the "logical mainline thinking", which provides it with a minimal starting point and allows it to solve problems quickly without grasping the rest.
The "minimum thinking" here includes "problem minimization" and "model minimization". The so-called "minimization" means that it is too small to be subdivided, that is, it loses its practical significance.
"Minimization of problems" means that the technical problems to be solved must be made so small that they cannot be subdivided or subdivided that they lose their practical significance. For example, to solve the problem of reducing product cost, this problem is usually not a minimization problem. The corresponding minimization problem should be a specific aspect of reducing costs, such as improving the internal structure of products or changing the materials of products. In other words, only when this specific problem is too small to be subdivided or subdivided has no practical significance, this problem is a minimization problem.
"Model minimization" is the minimization model of the "problem solution" of the above-mentioned minimization problem. In this minimization model, the technical problems to be solved have been minimized, so its technical effects and technical means should be further minimized. Technical effect and technical means are usually directly related. In order to minimize technical means, it is necessary to keep only the unique core effect of technical effect. If there is a technical effect other than the core effect, then the technical effect of the extra branch should be the technical effect derived from the core effect, rather than the technical effect pursued mainly by technical means.
Under the guidance of "minimum thinking", claims written with "problem minimization" and "model minimization" usually overcome the problem that the "logic main line" is unclear or has unnecessary technical characteristics. That is to say, as long as the "minimum thinking" is strictly adopted, it is not necessary to judge whether the technical features written in the claims are necessary or unnecessary. Because, as long as we adhere to the writing ideas of "problem minimization" and "model minimization", all necessary technical features must be written in the claims, and there can be no unnecessary technical features.
In the actual writing work, this "minimum thinking" should be used not only in the writing of independent claims, but also in the writing of dependent claims. We must treat independent claims and dependent claims equally as separate claims, just as we should treat fathers and children as independent people, and we should use the same "minimum thinking" or "logical thinking" to analyze and study the problems corresponding to each claim.
After clarifying the above logic, it is easier to demonstrate whether to adhere to the principle of unilateral writing or single subject or to give up the principle of unilateral writing or single subject when writing the patent of multi-agent operation method.
There is nothing mysterious and insurmountable about unilateral writing and multifaceted writing, and there are similar problems in the writing of product patent claims. For example, for the typical case of "oneness" problem-power board and socket claim writing, if separate claims are written for power board and socket respectively, it is equivalent to single-sided writing, while if power board and socket are written in the same technical scheme of the same claim, it is equivalent to multi-sided writing. However, in practice, even if there is the concern of "singleness", the applicant will usually write the patch panel and the socket into independent claims separately, but not into the same technical scheme of the same claim. However, if the applicant writes the plug-in and socket into the same technical scheme of the same claim due to ignorance or negligence, there is no doubt that the applicant must bear the adverse consequences caused by the problems and defects in the writing of the claim.
And why are such clear problems in product patents vague in method patents? This is mainly because in method patents, especially in some operation method patents in the field of communication, the technical scheme inevitably involves multiple execution subjects, and the key of operation method lies in the interaction between these execution subjects. Therefore, it is impossible to put the patch panel and socket into different technical solutions of two different claims without interfering with each other, as in the product patents of the patch panel and socket.
However, even so, we can pay attention to and improve the writing of patent claims for this kind of working methods from the following two aspects.
Finally, back to the topic of "minimum thinking" at the beginning of this article. In fact, unilateral writing is also the implementation of "minimum thinking" in the writing of method patent claims. If we insist on "minimalist thinking", we must insist on unilateral writing, because only unilateral writing can realize "problem minimization" and "model minimization" in "minimalist thinking".