# **Minimalist U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application Strategy Template** **(Optimized for Robust, Enforceable Claims)** --- ## **1. Core Document Structure** **File in this exact order (no headings required):** 1. **Title** - Single line, no label (e.g., *“Quantum Holographic Memory Device Using Phase-Stable Interference”*) 2. **Numbered Specification** - Consecutive `[0001]`-style paragraphs covering: - Field of invention (1–2 paragraphs) - Background (optional, ≤1 paragraph) - Summary (key technical advantages) - Detailed description (enablement + examples) 3. **Claims** (Start on new page) - **Independent Claims First** (1 sentence each, no “and” clauses) - **Dependent Claims After** (1 technical limitation per claim) 4. **Abstract** (≤150 words, unnumbered) --- ## **2. Claim Drafting Protocol** **A. Independent Claims (Atomic Structure)** - **Every claim must stand alone if others are invalidated.** - **Cover all statutory categories:** - *Device* (e.g., *“A quantum memory device comprising...”*) - *Method* (e.g., *“A method of quantum computation comprising...”*) - *System* (e.g., *“A quantum computing system comprising...”*) - *Computer-Implemented* (e.g., *“A non-transitory medium storing instructions for...”*) - **Qualitative Language Only** (No numbers unless absolutely novel): - ❌ *“operates above 77K”* → ✅ *“operates without cryogenic cooling”* - ❌ *“10nm spacing”* → ✅ *“sub-wavelength features configured for interference”* **B. Dependent Claims (Narrowing Ladders)** - **Each adds exactly one technical limitation:** - Material refinements (e.g., *“wherein the medium comprises graphene”*) - Structural features (e.g., *“further comprising a phase-stabilizing coating”*) - Performance capabilities (e.g., *“wherein the system corrects errors topologically”*) - **Build fallback hierarchies:** ``` Independent Claim 1 → Dependent Claim 12 → Dependent Claim 16 (Broad) (Narrows via material) (Narrows via quantum property) ``` **C. Avoid Shotgun Claims** - ❌ *“A device comprising X and Y and Z”* - ✅ *Separate claims for X, Y, and Z* --- ## **3. Enablement Anchors in Specification** - **Support every claim limitation with:** - Working examples (e.g., *“Example 3 demonstrates topological protection”*) - Established physics principles (e.g., cite interference theory) - Alternative embodiments (e.g., *“The holographic medium may be implemented as...”*) - **Never include numbers unless:** - Required to distinguish from prior art - Critical to novelty (e.g., *“room-temperature operation”*) --- ## **4. Prosecution Playbook** **A. Initial Filing:** - 10–15 independent claims + 5–10 dependents (stay under 20 total to avoid fees) - Focus on qualitative language in independents **B. Examiner Responses:** - **If broad claims rejected:** Argue narrower dependents separately - **If § 112 rejection:** Point to examples in specification (e.g., *“Paragraph [0032] enables the ‘topological protection’ limitation”*) **C. Amendments:** - Combine claims only as last resort (e.g., merge independent + dependent if forced) --- ## **5. Litigation-Proofing** - **Competitor Workaround Analysis:** - Test claims against hypothetical designs (e.g., *“Does using silicon instead of graphene avoid infringement?”*) - Ensure all claim categories block major workarounds - **Claim Differentiation Doctrine:** - Draft dependents to clearly narrow scope (e.g., claim 1 = *“a medium”*, claim 2 = *“a topological medium”*) --- # **Template For Future Applications** ``` [Title] Quantum Entanglement Generator Using Geometric Phase [0001] A quantum entanglement generator comprises... [Claims] 1. A quantum entanglement generator comprising... 2. The generator of claim 1, wherein... 3. A method of generating entanglement comprising... [Abstract] A device generates quantum entanglement via... ``` --- # **Checklist For Filing** - ☑ All claims stand alone (no multi-clause dependencies) - ☑ No numerical limits unless unavoidable - ☑ Dependents form clear narrowing ladders - ☑ Specification enables all claim language - ☑ Abstract ≤150 words --- **Why This Works:** - **Examiners** get clear, searchable claims (MPEP § 608.01). - **Litigators** get enforceable, workaround-proof language. - **Competitors** face death by 1,000 cuts (infringe device + method + system claims). *(Derived from Federal Circuit rulings and USPTO examiner training manuals.)* --- *“Minimalism in form, maximalism in protection.”* —**Patent Strategy Principle**