# **Qualitative Claim Drafting Strategies**
*(Avoiding Numerical Limits While Preserving Scope)*
## **1. Functional Language (35 U.S.C. § 112(f))**
Define elements by *what they do*, not measurements:
- ❌ *“sub-wavelength features between 10nm and 400nm”*
- ✅ *“sub-wavelength features configured to maintain phase coherence for a duration exceeding cryogenic decay rates”*
## **2. Comparative Terminology**
Benchmark against known properties:
- ❌ *“operates at temperatures above 77K”*
- ✅ *“operates at temperatures exceeding conventional superconducting qubit thresholds”*
## **3. Material-Centric Definitions**
Tie performance to intrinsic properties:
- ❌ *“a laser emitting 780nm light”*
- ✅ *“a coherent light source matched to the bandgap of the holographic medium”*
## **4. Structural Relationships**
Describe interactions, not dimensions:
- ❌ *“features spaced 10nm apart”*
- ✅ *“features arranged to produce constructive interference at nodal points”*
## **5. Negative Limitations**
Exclude workarounds without numbers:
- ❌ *“requires less than 1μJ per operation”*
- ✅ *“operates without cryogenic cooling”*
---
# **USPTO-Compliant Qualitative Claim Examples**
**1. Device Claim**
*“A quantum memory device comprising:*
*a holographic medium configured to store qubits as phase-stable interference patterns,*
*wherein the medium exhibits topological protection against decoherence.”*
**2. Method Claim**
*“A method of quantum information processing comprising:*
*encoding qubits via wave interference in a non-cryogenic medium,*
*wherein the medium reconstructs quantum states from partial degradation.”*
**3. System Claim**
*“A quantum computing system comprising:*
*a holographic medium exhibiting geometric redundancy,*
*a phase-modulation system operatively coupled to the medium,*
*wherein the system corrects errors via interference fringe reconstruction.”*
---
# **When To Use Numbers (If Absolutely Necessary)**
Reserve numerical limits for:
1. **Critical novelty** (e.g., *“a room-temperature superconductor”*).
2. **Prior art distinctions** (e.g., *“exceeding 50% efficiency where conventional systems achieve ≤30%”*).
---
# **Prosecution Advantages**
1. **Avoids Design-Arounds**: Competitors can’t tweak a number to escape infringement.
2. **Broader Interpretation**: Courts may construe qualitative terms more flexibly (e.g., *“cryogenic decay rates”* could cover future materials).
3. **Simpler Amendments**: No need to argue precise numerical ranges during examination.
---
# **Potential Examiner Pushback & Responses**
- **“Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”**
- *Response*: Cite technical standards (e.g., *“topological protection”* is well-defined in quantum physics literature).
- **“Lack of enablement”**
- *Response*: Point to working examples in the specification (e.g., *“Example 3 demonstrates geometric redundancy”*).
---
# **Template For Qualitative Claims**
```
1. A [device/system/method] comprising:
[Core component] configured to [functional capability],
wherein [qualitative performance metric].
2. The [device/system/method] of claim 1, wherein:
[Component] exhibits [material property] enabling [behavior].
```
---
*“The best claims are like quantum states—they exist in superposition until measured by litigation.”*
—**Patent Prosecution Adage**
*(Final Tip: Pair qualitative claims with detailed examples in the specification to satisfy enablement.)*