TOPICS

For patent and utility model applications filed on or after April 1, 2022, multiple dependent claims that depend on another multiple dependent claim in the alternative (“multi-multi” dependent claims) are no longer acceptable in Japan. Upon examination, such multiple dependent claims are opposed to without being examined for novelty, inventive step, sufficiency, etc. You can see more details at the JPO website (link here).

If the present application includes any such multiple dependent claims and if the filing date (for PCT national phase applications, the international filing date) is April 1, 2022 or later, we highly recommend that you amend these claims to avoid the improper multiple dependency when examination is requested or at least before examination begins.

The following are examples of proper and improper multiple dependent claims based on the JPO examination guidelines:

• Example 1

1. A ball bearing comprising an inner race, an outer race, and balls sandwiched between the inner and outer races.
2. A ball bearing according to claim 1, wherein the inner race is stainless steel.
3. A ball bearing according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the outer race is stainless steel. (PROPER)
4. A ball bearing according to any of claims 1 to 3, further comprising an annular cushion around the outer race. (IMPROPER)
5. A ball bearing according to claim 4, wherein the annular cushion is rubber. (IMPROPER)

Claim 4 is an improper multiple dependent claim because it depends on claim 3, another multiple dependent claim, in the alternative. Although claim 5 is not a multiple dependent claim, it depends on improper multiple dependent claim 4. Therefore, claims 4 and 5 will be objected to without being examined for substantive patentability.

• Example 2

1. A ball bearing comprising an inner race, an outer race, and balls sandwiched between the inner and outer races.
2. A ball bearing according to claim 1, wherein the inner race is stainless steel.
3. A ball bearing according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the outer race is stainless steel. (PROPER)
4. A method of manufacturing a ball bearing according to any of claims 1 to 3. (IMPROPER)

Although in a different category, multiple dependent claim 4 depends on claim 3 in the alternative, which is another multiple dependent claim. Therefore, claim 4 will be objected to without being examined for substantive patentability.

• Example 3

1. A ball bearing comprising an inner race, an outer race, and balls sandwiched between the inner and outer races.
2. A ball bearing according to claim 1, further comprising an annular cushion around the outer race.
3. A ball bearing according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the inner race is stainless steel. (PROPER)
4. A ball bearing according to claim 3, wherein the stainless steel is ferritic stainless steel. (PROPER)
5. A ball bearing according to claim 3, wherein the stainless steel is martensitic stainless steel. (PROPER)
6. A ball bearing according to claim 4 or 5, wherein the outer race is stainless steel. (IMPROPER)

Claim 6 is a multiple dependent claim that depends on claims 4 and 5 in the alternative. Through claims 4 and 5, claim 6 indirectly depends on claim 3, which is another multiple dependent claim. Therefore, claim 6 will be objected to without being examined for substantive patentability.

• Example 4

1. A bolt having a mail thread of structure A.
2. A bolt according to claim 1, wherein the bolt is made of aluminum alloy.
3. A bolt according to claim 1 or 2, further comprising a flange. (PROPER)
4. A nut having a female thread of structure B.
5. A nut according to claim 4, wherein the nut is made of aluminum alloy.
6. A nut according to claim 4 or 5, further comprising a flange. (PROPER)
7. A fastening device comprising a bolt according to any of claims 1 to 3 and a nut according to any of claims 4 to 6. (IMPROPER)
8. A fastening device comprising a bolt according to claim 3 and a nut according to claim 6. (PROPER)

Claims 1 to 3 are directed to a bolt, claims 4 to 6 a nut, and claims 7 and 8 a fastening device comprising a bolt and a nut.

Claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim that depends on multiple dependent claims 3 and 6 in the alternative, respectively. Therefore, claim 7 will be objected to without being examined for substantive patentability.

On the other hand, claim 8 depends on claim 3 and claim 6, such that the multiple dependency of claim 8 is not in the alternative. Therefore, claim 8 will be treated as a proper multiple dependent claim, even though it depends on multiple dependent claims 3 and 6.