"Step for" or "Step of" to avoid MPF - US patent claims

The answer to your question is very simple - when you are claiming a method, you claim, for example: 1. A method for........, comprising the steps of:
receiving.......

All method steps should preferably be in "ing" form - so it could be "providing", "forming", "receiving", "attaching"......

A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph when it explicitly uses the term “means” or “step” and includes functional language.

However, that presumption may be overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function. (See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259-60, 85 USPQ2d 1787, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Thus, specifying in the claim, the structure necessary to perform the recited function reduces the chances of invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

However, if the structure is considered a non-structural generic placeholder, it will still invoke U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”. (See e.g., Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Thus, to reduce the chances of invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, one should avoid using "means" or "step" in a claim, avoid using one of the above listed non-structural generic placeholders, and/or specify structure different from the above listed non-structural generic placeholders capable of performing the function.

For example, specifying "a transceiver for receiving" is not likely to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

-Please note, the above is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice-