Title

General Rules on Title

The title may appear simple and straightforward, but some attention should be given. As specifically pointed out in MPEP section 606, below is the breakdown of the requirement:

1. Placement
The title should be at the top of the first page of the specification, unless it is included in the application data sheet (refer to 37 CFR 1.76).

2. Characteristics of Title
Brief and Descriptive: The title must be technically accurate and descriptive.
Length: Should contain fewer than 500 characters.

3. Excluded Words
According to MPEP 606, certain words should not be used at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be removed from Office records and issued patents. These words include:

When crafting patent titles, avoid using the above words at the beginning of the title of the invention. These are often acceptable in scientific articles but not in patent titles. Patent title conventions differ from academic norms. For instance, titles like “Novel Approaches to Solving X” or “Improvement for Obtaining Y” are standard in scientific journals, emphasizing the research’s uniqueness and significance. However, such style of titling is not appropriate for patent titles, as per the guidelines.

Note that the MPEP specifically mentions that certain words should not be used at the beginning of the title. But what about their use within the title? While there seems to be no specific requirement regarding their use inside the title, it is still good practice to avoid value-implying words like “novel” or “improved.” This ensures the title clearly indicates the subject of the invention without implying its value.

Non-descriptive Title

A patent title should be succinct yet technically precise. Titles often use broad categorizations, like “Signal Processing Apparatus” or “Touch Screen Device and Method.”

While general titles might seem appealing because they avoid specific details, they may lack sufficient descriptiveness. During patent examination, an examiner may request a change in the title if it is not descriptive enough, as noted in Office Actions that states:

In many cases, examiners often suggest alternative titles. Therefore, it’s not necessary to spend excessive effort detailing the title. Even if the examiner doesn’t propose an alternative, enhancing the title with specific components or intended purposes can effectively address this type of objection.

The objective is to find a balance: general enough to protect specifics, yet descriptive enough to reflect the invention’s main element or function. Titles like “Display Device and Method,” “Signal Processing Apparatus,” and “Resins and Resin Compositions” might be deemed to be non-descriptive.

If the examiners do not object to these titles, they are generally considered acceptable. However, refining these titles with a specific function or purpose improves their clarity and descriptiveness, as shown in the revised titles below.