Level of description/claim detalization

[DullBoy]

Hi Bradley!

I'm confused how detailed claim and/or description should be.

Let's imagine I've invented a wheel.
It can be made of lot of materials/combination of materials.
It can comprise a number of spokes or be spokeless.
Its tire's cross-section can be of round or rectangular or any other shape.
It can comprise a hub or be hubless.
And so forth.

I see that wheel can be defined through the enumeration of its elements (possibly absent) with a lot of remarks like "of arbitrary/optional shape/number/type/etc". This way look to me like not very promising. Something missed and all claim will be voided. Another doubt - if it permitted at all to define invention in terms of arbitrary/optional elements.

Is there any approaches to make a definition for the big family of embodiments? I know that there are so called "Singer patents" focused on a single crucial detail but that is definitely not my case.

[Brad]

Sounds to me like you are trying to patent a concept.  Concepts are not patentable, only "inventions" are patentable.   An invention has definition and boundaries.   In your wheel example, you have to define the shape and structure of the wheel.  I would argue the round shape is needed (in practice nobody wants to use a square wheel) so I would start there.  Then think of the other areas that are essential for the wheel like a centrally located connection point.

Claim drafting is not easy.  There is a reason why patent attorneys can charge $500+ per hour to think through these things carefully.   Once you have your claims properly drafted, you can use those as your framework to write out the entire application and describe each of your claim terms.