What is the impact of using multiple transitional phrases in a single patent claim?

Using multiple transitional phrases in a single patent claim can create complexity in claim interpretation. While the MPEP 2111.03 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, general principles of claim construction apply:

• Hierarchical interpretation: Typically, the broadest transitional phrase governs the overall claim scope, while narrower phrases may apply to specific elements or sub-combinations.
• Clarity requirement: Claims must be clear and definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Multiple transitional phrases should not create ambiguity.
• Element-specific scope: Different elements within the claim may have different scopes based on their associated transitional phrases.

For example, consider the claim:

“A composition comprising: a cleaning agent consisting of X and Y; and a fragrance component consisting essentially of A, B, and C.”

In this case:

• The overall composition is open-ended due to “comprising.”
• The cleaning agent is limited to only X and Y.
• The fragrance component allows for minor, non-material additions to A, B, and C.

When drafting or interpreting claims with multiple transitional phrases, it’s crucial to carefully consider how each phrase affects its associated elements and the overall claim scope. Clear drafting and consistent use of transitional phrases can help avoid potential issues in claim interpretation.

To learn more:

• transitional phrases
• patent claims
• multiple transitional phrases
• claim interpretation