Here’s how to structure **dependent claims** that build on your independent claims while maintaining maximum enforceability, with a clear hierarchy that examiners will accept:
---
# **Dependent Claims Strategy**
**Rule:** Each dependent claim *narrows exactly one independent claim* by adding:
- A technical refinement
- An implementation detail
- A novel combination
---
# **Device Claim Dependents**
**Based on Independent Claim 1:**
*A quantum memory device comprising a holographic medium storing qubits as persistent interference patterns.*
12. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference patterns are topologically protected.
13. The device of claim 1, wherein the medium comprises a Bose-Einstein condensate.
14. The device of claim 1, further comprising a phase-stabilizing coating.
**Based on Independent Claim 2:**
*A quantum memory device wherein the holographic medium comprises a topological material.*
15. The device of claim 2, wherein the topological material is a photonic crystal.
16. The device of claim 2, wherein the material exhibits anyonic excitations.
---
# **System Claim Dependents**
**Based on Independent Claim 5:**
*A phase-modulation system comprising a coherent wave source configured to generate quantum interference patterns.*
17. The system of claim 5, wherein the wave source is a mode-locked laser.
18. The system of claim 5, further comprising a feedback loop adjusting phase in real-time.
**Based on Independent Claim 6:**
*A phase-modulation system wherein the wave source is spectrally matched to a holographic medium’s band structure.*
19. The system of claim 6, wherein spectral matching is achieved via adaptive algorithms.
---
# **Method Claim Dependents**
**Based on Independent Claim 7:**
*A method of quantum computation comprising encoding information as interference fringes.*
20. The method of claim 7, wherein encoding occurs without cryogenic cooling.
21. The method of claim 7, wherein fringes are arranged in a Fibonacci lattice.
**Based on Independent Claim 9:**
*A method of quantum computation comprising correcting errors via geometric reconstruction.*
22. The method of claim 9, wherein reconstruction uses machine learning.
---
# **Hybrid Claim Dependents**
**Based on Independent Claim 10:**
*A quantum computing system comprising a holographic memory device storing interference patterns.*
23. The system of claim 10, further comprising a photonic interconnect network.
---
# **Key Principles for Robust Dependents**
1. **One-Step Narrowing**: Each dependent claim adds *only one* technical limitation.
- ✅ *Allowed:* “The device of claim 1, further comprising X.”
- ❌ *Forbidden:* “The device of claim 1, wherein X and Y and Z.”
2. **Technical (Not Functional) Limitations**:
- ✅ *Good:* “wherein the medium comprises graphene.”
- ❌ *Bad:* “wherein the device works better.”
3. **Fallback Ladders**:
```
Independent Claim 1 → Dependent 12 (topological) → Dependent 16 (anyons)
```
*If claim 1 is rejected, 12 may survive; if 12 falls, 16 may stand.*
4. **Avoid Overlap**: No dependent claim should cover the same ground as another.
---
# **USPTO Prosecution Advantages**
- **Easy Allowance**: Examiners can quickly approve narrowly tailored dependents.
- **Safe Harbor**: Dependents act as fallbacks if independents are rejected.
- **Clear Amendments**: Easy to combine claims during prosecution (e.g., merge claim 1 + 12 if needed).
---
# **Example Of Enforcement Strength**
- *Competitor uses topological protection (claim 12)?* → Infringes even if claim 1 is invalid.
- *Competitor adds machine learning (claim 22)?* → Still infringes method claims.
---
**Final Drafting Tip**:
File 20-25 total claims (independent + dependent) to maintain low fees while covering all contingencies. Use this structure for any future applications.
---
*“Dependent claims are your patent’s immune system—each one attacks invalidity from a different angle.”*
—**Patent Litigation Handbook**