The claim shall have enough parts and connections to form a complete technical scheme, and the necessary technical features shall not be lacking.
The second point: Is there any obvious change?
Ensure that no element in the claim can be substituted to achieve the same result.
For example, the claim mentions "capacitance", but competitors can easily use "inductance" to avoid infringement.
The third point: Does it include existing technology?
Consider whether the scope of protection defined in the claims includes the prior art..
If there is, it should be modified, but it should be noted that the less modification, the better, as long as it can bring creativity to the invention.
The fourth point: Is subordination strict?
It must be carefully scrutinized to make it as powerful as possible (including two aspects: it is not easy to fail and it is not easy to be bypassed), because the broader claims it cites may fail if some existing technologies are discovered.
Fifth point: Is the language accurate?
Carefully consider choosing words, including the absolute meaning of each word and the relative relationship between words. When there is a structural relationship in the mechanism structure, ensure that the description is appropriate.
For example, don't say "one arm sticks out from your foot" (the long hands on your feet are hard to understand).
Sixth point: Is orientation necessary?
Only when the orientation is normal can the structure (including "up", "down", "horizontal" and "vertical") be described by orientation. ).
For example, a building may be vertical, but bicycle wheels sold separately have no direction requirements.
Point 7: Have you considered both the empty state and the full state?
Some structures may be more convenient to describe their usage status.
For example, a hand sanitizer spray bottle may be more convenient and easier to understand when filled with liquid. However, spray bottles may also be sold as empty bottles, and it is more appropriate to describe them as empty bottles and full bottles.
Eighth point: Is it concise?
Use lexicology to help write clear and concise claims.
If there are four conjunctions in a structure, it may be written as the first, second, third and fourth conjunctions, but it is awkward and difficult to read. Conversely, if you use synonymous variants of connectors, such as connectors, connectors, rods, components, etc., it may be easier to write and read.
A dictionary can be used to help you choose words.
Point 9: Does it cover all the embodiments?
Ensure that the broadest claims cover all embodiments, instead of focusing on some parts and ignoring others.
Point 10: Is the description of sports too absolute?
Ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on components in the description language,
For example, if one element is moving and another element is stationary, it may usually be the opposite. So it is best to say "two elements can move relative to each other".
Are the words 1 1 consistent?
Ensure that the words in the claims are based on the description and the attached drawings, and the words in each claim are consistent.
Point 12: Does the attached drawing support it?
Remember, in some countries, especially the United States, if the structure of an element can be shown in a diagram, then it must appear in the diagram, no matter how simple it is.
Point 13: What is the consistency between rights and requirements?
Check the dependent claims to ensure that the reference numbers are correct and the words used therein match the words used in the cited claims.
Point 14: Are the objectives and results consistent?
There are often some claims that refer to an object in the preamble, such as "a dispenser for providing a unit dose of liquid medicine". In this case, it should be remembered that the rest of the claims should fully provide such a dispenser. On the contrary, don't describe the effect that a claim can't achieve.
Point 15: Is the claim amount appropriate?
Many countries only allow a broad creditor's right, followed by a group of gradually narrowing creditors' rights. But it may be dangerous to do so, because everything is based on one idea. When writing, you can try to write from different angles and find the best one.
In some countries, many claims are submitted first, and then some claims are deleted or divided without extra charge. The United States will allow multiple independent claims, which may sometimes be worthwhile, even if the number is later reduced based on the discovery of the prior art or the inventor's better understanding of the invention.
Point 16: Is the claim type missing?
Whenever possible, consider different types of claims, such as products, process methods, manufacturing methods, equipment, etc.
Point 17: Combination or single item?
It is not enough to list components without describing their connection relationship, so that they have certain practical functions. The idea of describing only the elements without describing the connection relationship is "patchwork". Similarly, if components cannot be combined to achieve the overall effect because of their respective characteristics, it is also "patchwork".
For example, a pencil and an eraser are pieced together.
Point 18: Is it necessary to disclose the definition of self-made words (non-dictionary words)?
Sometimes, words used in patent applications have specific or restrictive meanings and must be disclosed in the specification. If possible, try to avoid this kind of treatment, because in some countries, the explanation in the dictionary is given priority, and only when the explanation in the dictionary cannot be understood in this claim will you refer to the instruction.
Point 19: Is the usage of specific words in specific fields appropriate?