A profound understanding of an invention’s essence during patent drafting hinges on mastering two core methodologies. First, persistently ask: “What is fundamentally happening?”—that is, strip away technical details and define the underlying logic of how the invention solves the core problem using functional language (rather than structural descriptions). This requires patent agents to focus on “what functional outcomes the invention achieves” rather than “how it is specifically implemented.” In practice, two key principles apply:
· When inventors provide multiple embodiments, distill their common underlying principle (the true inventive essence remains consistent across all embodiments).
· Proactively overcome inventors’ cognitive constraints (they often mistake certain technical features as indispensable) by constructing “logically viable alternative embodiments” (intentionally omitting details the inventor deems essential) to verify the genuine technical core.
Second, rigorously distinguish between “HOW” (implementation) and “WHAT” (essence). The invention’s essence lies in solving a problem (WHAT), not in a specific solution path (HOW). A classic case illustrates this principle:
An invention disclosure describes “customizing rules for determining obstacle-line encroachment by dividing space into short/medium/long distance segments.” The agent must recognize that:
· ❌ The HOW: Dividing three segments and defining rules per segment → implementation details.
· ✅ The WHAT: Segment-based differential processing according to spatial variations → the true inventive essence overcoming the “one-size-fits-all” drawback.
Critical reflection: If the inventor divided space into 100 segments, would all rules need listing in the independent claims? Clearly not.
This methodology guards against the “illusion of necessity” induced by implementation details (even experienced agents may succumb to this pitfall), redirecting focus from specific solutions to the patentable inventive concept—significantly broadening claim protection.
These two methodologies reinforce each other: Asking “what is fundamentally happening?” reveals the functional essence, while distinguishing WHAT/HOW ensures this essence remains unobscured by implementation details. Mastering them empowers agents to see beyond surface-level details and draft patents that are both legally robust and commercially valuable.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号