Legal Definitions - aggregation of claims

In the context of patent law, aggregation of claims refers to a situation where a patent application contains an excessive number of claims that are overly similar or essentially duplicative in their scope. While an inventor is allowed to describe and protect various aspects and features of their invention, each claim must define a distinct and materially different element, combination, or scope of protection. If claims merely rephrase the same inventive concept without adding a new, meaningful distinction, they are considered an aggregation, which can lead to objections from patent examiners due to a lack of clarity and an undue burden on the examination process.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Slightly Reworded Features

  Imagine an inventor develops a new type of water bottle with a unique, leak-proof cap. Instead of clearly defining the cap's innovative mechanism in a few distinct ways, the patent application includes multiple claims such as:

  • "A water bottle comprising a cap designed to prevent liquid leakage."
  • "A beverage container featuring a sealing mechanism that inhibits spills."
  • "A portable liquid holder equipped with a closure device engineered for leak prevention."

  How it illustrates the term: All three claims describe essentially the same core feature – a leak-proof cap – using slightly different phrasing. They do not introduce distinct inventive concepts or different scopes of protection for the cap's design or function. This redundancy would be considered an aggregation of claims because they are not materially different from one another.

• Example 2: Redundant Functional Descriptions

  Consider an inventor who creates a new software algorithm for optimizing data compression. Their patent application might include claims like:

  • "A method for data compression utilizing a novel algorithm to reduce file size."
  • "A computer-implemented process for minimizing data storage requirements through an innovative compression technique."
  • "A system for efficient data archiving, characterized by an algorithm that achieves superior compression ratios."

  How it illustrates the term: Each of these claims attempts to protect the same fundamental invention: a new data compression algorithm. While the language varies, they all cover the same functional outcome and underlying inventive concept without presenting genuinely distinct aspects or applications of the algorithm. This repetition constitutes an aggregation of claims.

• Example 3: Minor Variations Without Inventive Distinction

  An inventor designs a new type of chair with an adjustable lumbar support system. They file claims such as:

  • "A chair comprising a backrest with an adjustable lumbar support."
  • "An ergonomic seating device featuring a movable support element for the lower back."
  • "A piece of furniture for sitting, including a back support mechanism that can be repositioned to comfort the lumbar region."

  How it illustrates the term: The core invention is the adjustable lumbar support. The claims merely rephrase this feature in different ways without introducing a new, distinct inventive step or scope. For example, if one claim detailed the specific *mechanism* of adjustment (e.g., a lever system) and another detailed a *different* mechanism (e.g., an inflatable bladder), they would be distinct. However, as presented, they are essentially redundant descriptions of the same feature, leading to an aggregation.