Which of the following situations can indicate non-compliance with 35 USC 112(b)?

Non-compliance with 35 USC 112(b), which deals with the requirement that claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention, can be indicated by various situations. Each of the scenarios presented highlights different aspects of how claims can fail to meet this requirement.

The first scenario involves language in the claims that is inconsistent with the specification. This inconsistency may lead to confusion about the scope of what is being claimed, potentially making it unclear whether the claims adequately describe the invention as detailed in the specification.

The second scenario discusses claims that are overly broad and not supported by the specification. Overly broad claims can encompass inventions beyond what the applicant has actually invented or disclosed, which is directly at odds with the requirement for clarity and specificity set forth in 35 USC 112(b).

The third situation pertains to claims that were significantly changed during prosecution. Significant changes can result in a lack of clarity concerning the subject matter being claimed, which can potentially fail to meet the distinctiveness requirement. Claims that evolve too far from their original form without adequate justification may lead to ambiguity.

Given that all these scenarios represent different ways in which claims could fail to provide the clarity and distinctness required by 35 USC 112(b), it is accurate to