How does the term “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.

The term “having” can function as a transitional phrase in patent claims, but its interpretation depends on the context. According to MPEP 2111.03:

“The transitional phrase “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.”

In some cases, “having” can be interpreted as open-ended, similar to “comprising.” However, it can also be used in a limiting sense, closer to “consisting of.” The specific interpretation depends on the claim language and the specification.

For example:

• Open-ended: “A method having steps A, B, and C” (may include additional steps)
• Limiting: “A mixture having only components X, Y, and Z” (excludes additional components)

When drafting or interpreting claims with “having,” it’s crucial to consider the entire context of the claim and specification to determine the intended scope.