Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Disclaimer: The information provided by the USPTO is meant as an educational resource only and should not be construed as legal advice or written law.
Advertisements

Incorporation by Reference
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
1 Homology Language Brian R. Stanton Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (703)
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
1. 2 Biotechnology Inventions: Genes & Life Forms and the Impact of Patenting on Upstream Science Nancy J. Linck, Ph.D., J.D. Deputy General Counsel Intellectual.
35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph MPEP 2181 – 2186 Jean Witz Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
Gene Therapy: Overcoming Enablement Rejections Karen M. Hauda Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1632 (703)
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
Memorandum - 35 U.S.C. 112, Second and Sixth Paragraphs Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
1 Biotechnology Partnership Meeting April 17, 2001 James Martinell Senior Level Examiner Technology Center 1600.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patent Processing – Examination Issues Patent, Trademark, and Copyright - Law and Policy 5-8 November 2007 Amman, Jordan Global Intellectual Property Academy.
Animals and Transgenesis Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Transgenic Animals — How they are made Examination of Transgenic.
Restriction Practice for Genus Claims Species Claims Linking Claims and Markush Claims Julie Burke QAS/PM TC1600.
OVERVIEW OF PATENTS: TRIPS and US PATENT EXAMINATION
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Examining Issues When.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 25, 2008 Patent - Utility.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 28, 2007 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 27, 2008 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Issues in Patenting Proteins Jon P Weber, SPE 1657.
1 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) A United States Perspective Stephen G. Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United.
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
SECTION 101 OF THE PATENT LAW Describes what is patentable subject matter: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Stem Cells — Origin Examination of Stem Cell Claims — Statutes — Sample Claims.
December 8, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818)(upon enactment) and 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
Patent Protection Around the World & at the USPTO
Examination of Protein Crystallography Applications Kathleen Kerr Bragdon, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1656.
Korean Patent System and Recent Changes. Practices in Chemistry. Bong Sig SONG Korean Patent Attorney Y. S. CHANG & ASSOCIATES February 9 th 2008.
The Patent Process. Protection of Ideas or Inventions An idea/know how Generally speaking, we would like to protect inventions that have significant commercial.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
The Patent Document II Class Notes: January 23, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
Impact of Myriad Decisions on Patent Eligibility of Biotechnology Inventions in Australia and the US.
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Technology Center 1600 Michael P. Woodward Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Josiah Hernandez Patentability Requirements. Useful Having utilitarian or commercial value Novel No one else has done it before If someone has done it.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Patentability of Reach-Through Claims Brian R. Stanton Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner.
Trilateral Project WM4 Report on comparative study on Examination Practice Relating to Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Haplotypes. Linda S.
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
How to Claim your Biotech- Based Invention Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ARDIN MARSCHEL SPE AU 1631 (571)
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
Patentable Subject Matter Donald M. Cameron. 2 Patents: The Bargain Public: gets use of invention after patent expires Inventor/Owner: gets limited monopoly.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
Patents II Disclosure Requirements Class 12 Notes Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
1 Utility Guidelines, Homology Claims and Anti-Sense Molecule Claims Drew Hissong, Ph.D. dhissong*sughrue.com Sughrue Mion, PLLC
LYDON - TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS1 Terminal Disclaimer (TD) A Terminal Disclaimer states that the patent –will expire on the same date as a related.
Patents, Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Patents II Disclosure Requirements
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.
A tutorial and update on patentable subject matter
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations

Utility

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. §101 Patentable Inventions

The Patent Office of the United Kingdom Issued Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to biotechnological Inventions (September 2002) Refer to the USPTO’s Utility Examination Guidelines “…although the Guidelines issued by the USPTO did not have direct effect in the UK, the requirement in the United States of America that a “specific, substantial and credible” utility be disclosed, was arguably the sort of disclosure, relating to industrial applicability, which the UK Office would expect to be contained in a UK application.”* * WIPO “Standing Committee on the Law of Patents” Ninth Session, Geneva, May 12 to16, 2003

ICOS Corporation/Seven Transmembrane Receptor, (EP-B ) OJEPT 2002, 293 Decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (June 20, 2001) “…potential uses of the invention are disclosed in the specification which however are based on a proposed function of the V28 protein as a receptor which is not sufficiently disclosed in the specification” “…the potential uses disclosed in the application are speculative, i.e., are not specific, substantial and credible and as such are not considered industrial applications.”

Utility Claim: An isolated and purified nucleic acid (protein) comprising SEQ ID NO: 1. Some asserted utilities for discussion: Forensics Cell identification (non-disease) Microarrays (non-specific) If the array is useful, are the individual members? Laundry lists of potential uses W/no common theme W/common theme

Utility- Post Filing Evidence Application asserts the claimed product is useful for treating a laundry list of diseases The list comprises apparently unrelated diseases that would not be expected to all be treatable by the same agent Is there a prima facie case for lack of utility? What evidence can overcome prima facie case of lack of utility?

“Laundry” List What constitutes a laundry list? Many pages of potential uses? 2 uses “Its an agonist or an antagonist” Is the assertion that all are treatable acceptable? What evidence can overcome prima facie case of lack of utility?

Utility- Post Filing Evidence A) Applicant responds with the argument that it is possible to treat one member of the list B) Applicant responds with evidence that it is possible to treat one member of the list Under what circumstances would this be compelling?

Preventing - Curing - Vaccines Are there situations when these terms will invoke a utility issue? If so, what situations?

Written Description

35 U.S.C. 112 Specification, first paragraph The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Written Description Is there a necessary link between meeting the written description requirement and the enablement requirement?

Written Description Is “homology/identity” plus function acceptable? Should the function be a specific, substantial, and credible use? Is there a difference between “homology/identity” language and the use of hybridization language?

Written Description When is “comprising” language appropriate for nucleic acid or protein claims? When should a process of use claim be subject to a written description rejection? Consider only process steps per se? Consider products used in process?

Written Description Variants, Fragments, Mutants, Subsequences How much description is necessary? Human, Mammalian, Vertebrate