Trying to comprehend legalese

[Alondro]

I don't know how many of you know, but after 6 months of tedious work, I submitted a patent application this spring.  But, as expected, I did something wrong with writing the patent itself and got a letter 'explaining' what needed to be changed.

After reading the letter 3 times, I still have no idea what the hell it wants me to do, except that involves the 'claims' section of the patent.

Is anyone here reasonably fluent in legal jargon and could help?

[Brunhidden]

im about half fluent- criminal justice teaches quite a good deal of legalese

[Ryudo Lee]

I used to work for a law firm, doing a lot of filing and legal billing (not a fun job AT ALL) so I've picked up a bit of jargon along the way.  And if I can't make sense of it, I know people who just might.

[Alondro]

A person at work thinks it means my patent claims could be divided into two distinct patents: the product, and a method of use.

He also says that the letter seems to indicate that I need to chose to split the claims section, or argue that they should be kept together, but that that will risk having the whole patent rejected if it is later decided that together they are unpatentable.

But, if the product is patented, then I can later apply to have the method claims reinstated.

I've decided in that case to split off the method of use claims for now, and to grit my teeth and call the patent office for more clarification of exactly what I need to do for that to go through.

I hate legal crap.