What is a single means claim and why is it problematic?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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. A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of the claim. These claims are problematic because they cover every conceivable means for achieving the stated result. The MPEP explains: “ The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. “ Single means claims are typically rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement, as they read on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Single Means Claim Must Be Enabled by Specification MPEP 2181 Recommended Single Means Claims Do Not Invoke 112(f) MPEP 2181 Prohibited Single Means Claim Is Limited to All Performing Means MPEP 2181 Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Driven by Claim Language MPEP 2181 Claim May Be Indefinite When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Analysis Is Ambiguous MPEP 2181 Recommended Rebuttable Presumptions for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) MPEP 2181 Recommended Single Means Claim Covers All Performing Means MPEP 2181 Unclear Claim Limitation May Be Rejected Under 112(b) MPEP 2181 Permitted Means-Plus-Function Limitation Requires Hardware Or Software Implementation MPEP 2181 Required Claim Limitation May Be Indefinite When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Analysis Is Ambiguous MPEP 2181 Recommended Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What is the &#8220;algorithm requirement&#8221; for computer-implemented functions under 112(f)? How are computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations interpreted? What are &#8220;nonce&#8221; words in the context of 35 U.S.C. 112(f...