How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

How does “having” function as a transitional phrase in patent claims?

The transitional phrase “having” in patent claims can function in different ways depending on the context:

• Open-ended transition: “Having” is generally interpreted as an open-ended transition, similar to “comprising,” unless the specification or other circumstances suggest otherwise.
• Closed transition: In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as a closed transition, similar to “consisting of,” if the intrinsic evidence clearly indicates that intent.

According to MPEP 2111.03:

“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.“

When interpreting claims with “having” as a transitional phrase, examiners and practitioners should carefully consider the specification and prosecution history to determine the intended scope.