Details: The method presented is the result of improving our processes of drafting patent applications over time. Moreover, the method allows computer support for processing the substantive aspects of the invention itself - not just text or pictures processing.

The Figure details a method for defining an invention or inventive aspect or embodiment, including:

- defining the field of the invention, or the problem being solved

- describing the function or use of the invention - what is the use of it?

- describe a practical application of the invention;

there may be a plurality of functions with innovative aspects, and a corresponding plurality of blocks

- detail the structure and operation of an embodiment which implements the application

- draft a claim which protects this invention or innovative aspect.

- evaluate the above with respect to Novelty and Non-obviousness. This can be done based on the Advantages of the embodiment.

Thus, a new method allows to draft a patent application, then to evaluate and improve it, preferably using automatic tools for higher efficiency.

Patentability criteria:

The application should comply with and answer the Utility requirements:

(A) Draft claims having an adequate supporting written description.

(1) Describe clearly what is claimed, indicating (correlating with)

all the specific embodiments of the invention - the disclosure, in text and drawings.

(2) Explain how the claims define statutory subject matter: a process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, and/or improvement thereof.

(3) If not clear initially, prove when given an oppurtunity during the examination, that the claimed invention has a well-established utility.

(B) Draft the claims and the supporting written description so as to assert for the claimed invention all the specific and substantial utility thereof:

(1) Show clearly and in detail how the claimed invention is useful for its particular practical purpose, at such a high technical/engineering level that it is acceptable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

(2) If the examiner rejects the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility, or rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the basis that the disclosure fails to teach how to use the invention as claimed, it is an indication that the application fails to comply with these patentability criteria and should be amended accordingly.

The patent application should clearly indicate how the invention is useful, that is it satisfies the utility requirement of section 101.

The utility of an invention has to be (i) specific, (ii) substantial and (iii) credible. See also MPEP § 2107 and Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1372, 76 USPQ2d at 1230.