Patent Applications Overlapping the Biotechnology and Mechanical Arts THOMAS BARRETT

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Advertisements

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE A full transcript of this presentation can be found under the Notes Tab. 35 USC 112 (f)*: Identifying Limitations.
Incorporation by Reference
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.
Industrial Property the Patent system
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
1 Bioinformatics Practice Considerations October 20, 2011 Ling Zhong, Ph.D.
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Double Patenting Simplified
Chemical Non-Statutory Double Patenting Examples Daniel Sullivan SPE, Art Unit 1621.
Julie Burke TC1600 QAS REJOINDER PRACTICE Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
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.
35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph MPEP 2181 – 2186 Jean Witz Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
Memorandum - 35 U.S.C. 112, Second and Sixth Paragraphs Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
1 Biotechnology Partnership Meeting April 17, 2001 James Martinell Senior Level Examiner Technology Center 1600.
Determination of Obviousness Practice Under the Genus-Species Guidelines and In re Ochiai; In re Brouwer Sreeni Padmanabhan & James Wilson Supervisory.
Restriction Practice for Nucleic Acid Molecules Julie Burke QAS/PM
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.
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. \\\71717/ v1 Slide 1 FDA Public Meeting David M. Fox Hogan & Hartson LLP (202) Regulation of.
Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Patent Quality Assurance Program. 2 Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations Office of Patent Quality Assurance.
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
RESTRICTING BETWEEN PRODUCT and PROCESS INVENTIONS Bruce Campell Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit
Current and Future USPTO Practice RESTRICTION PRACTICES AT THE USPTO 1 © AIPLA 2015.
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:
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Notice of Proposed Rule Making Affecting Claims That Recite Alternatives 1 Robert Clarke, Director Office of Patent Legal Administration (571)
1 John Calvert Supervisory Patent Examiner
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department.
©2011 Haynes and Boone, LLP 1 Functional Language in Claims David O’Dell Haynes and Boone LLP
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
© 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.
1 Restriction Practice Updates Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
Introduction to Patents Anatomy of a Patent & Procedures for Getting a Patent Margaret Hartnett Commercialisation & IP Manager University.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson.
1 When is it NOT Appropriate to Restrict? Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
FY09 Restriction Petition Update; Comparison of US and National Stage Restriction Practice Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
1 Restriction Petition Survey; A Few Helpful Hints Julie Burke TC1600 Special Program Examiner
Anthony Caputa Quality Lead OPQA
Claims, Anticipation, and Obviousness Kathleen Kahler Fonda Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration July 30, 2010.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
1 FY08 Restriction Petition Update and Burden Julie Burke Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.
Unity of invention – outcome of the IP5 work MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES – QUALITY SUBGROUP Camille Bogliolo (PCT Affairs) and Luigi Petrucci.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

Patent Applications Overlapping the Biotechnology and Mechanical Arts THOMAS BARRETT

2 Overview n The overlap of patent applications within the biotechnology and mechanical arts n How patent applications are classified n 101 and claims directed towards a combination that includes parts of the human body

3 Intersection of Biotechnology and Mechanical Arts n n An example of a biotechnology class associated with the mechanical arts is Class 435-Chemistry: Molecular Biology and Microbiology n n An example of a mechanical class associated with biotechnology arts is Class 623- Prosthesis (i.e., Artificial Body Members), Parts Thereof, or Aids and Accessories Therefor

4 Class 435 Over 172,000 patents & published applications Within these 172,000 references, over 8,000 disclose at least one of the following delivery devices: Stent, prosthetic or prosthesis.

5 Class 623 Nearly 30,000 patents & published applications, including stents, prosthetics and prostheses.

6 Areas of Overlapping Art n n Stents and prosthetics are just some of the possible devices found in the mechanical art that can be used for delivery of body treating compositions. n n Other delivery devices, such as syringes, are less often claimed in combination with the treating compositions.

7 Example Coatings for eluting therapeutic compositions on stents. These therapeutic compositions may act as anti-thrombotics, antibiotics, and anti-inflammatories etc.

8 Obviousness If a body treating therapeutic composition is disclosed within the prior art as acting as anti-thrombotics, antibiotics, and anti- inflammatories etc., and the stent is not novel, the combination of the composition and the stent may be obvious.

9 Example Claim A vascular stent graft comprising: a biologically active surface which exhibits cell attachment activity and growth activity, said surface having linked thereto the expressed protein of a vector containing a DNA sequence of cDNA coding for the A chain of laminin.

10 Some Rationales for Obviousness n Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results n Combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.

11 Possible Rebuttal Evidence n One of ordinary skill in the art could not have combined the claimed elements by known methods (e.g., due to technological difficulties); n The elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately; or n The results of the claimed combination were unexpected.

12 Where is the Application Classified? If the claims are directed to both a body treating composition and a mechanical device, what class is it placed in?

13 Purposes of Classification For administrative and examination purposes (e.g., ensuring the examination of patent applications by the best qualified examiner on the subject matter, restricting patent applications to properly related inventions, interference or infringement searches, etc.), there is a need to designate for U.S. patents a primary, or Original, classification. For administrative and examination purposes (e.g., ensuring the examination of patent applications by the best qualified examiner on the subject matter, restricting patent applications to properly related inventions, interference or infringement searches, etc.), there is a need to designate for U.S. patents a primary, or Original, classification.

14 Purposes of Classification (cont) Applications placed in the correct class, subclass and technology center from the start can also help reduce pendency.

15 Classification In this section we will look at: n How an application is classified. n How an applicant can help to ensure proper classification.

16 Classifying Patent Applications and PGPubs: Controlling Claim If a document has claims directed towards inventions classified separately, the controlling claim: a) Determines the class for the original classification and, b) Determines the class where a patent application is to be assigned for examination

17 Classifying Patents and PGPubs: Controlling Claims Principles used to determine the controlling claim (in order of precedence): I. Most Comprehensive Claim II. Hierarchy of Categories of Subject Matter III. Superiority of types of subject matter IV. Class Superiority

18 Most Comprehensive Claim The claim setting forth the most comprehensive organization (for example, a claim to a combination as compared to a claim to a subcombination or element of that combination) will control placement of a patent or application among classes.

19 Example 1. A coating for a vascular graft having a polymeric external surface comprising: a biologically active surface which exhibits cell attachment activity and growth activity, said surface having linked thereto the expressed protein of a vector. 2. The coating of claim 1, wherein said vector contains a DNA sequence of cDNA coding for the A chain of laminin. 3. The coating of claim 1, in combination with a vascular graft.

20 Exception - Most “Examinable” In cases where there is a claim drawn to hybrid or mixed subject matter and the Supervisor in one discipline determines that the application requires consideration by, or may be best examined by, a TC in one of the other technical disciplines, he or she may request a transfer of the application on a "best examinable" basis.

21 Reasons Supporting a Transfer of an Application n An application contains a hybrid claim wherein, for instance, a product is defined merely in terms of the process for producing it. n Where an application properly assigned to a mechanical class contains at least one claim to mixed subject matter, a part of which is biotechnical, the application may be assigned to the appropriate biotechnology art unit for examination.

22 Application Data Sheet This information includes a suggested classification, by class and subclass and the Technology Center to which the subject matter of the invention is assigned. Application information in the Application Data Sheet- This information includes a suggested classification, by class and subclass and the Technology Center to which the subject matter of the invention is assigned.

23 PCTs If a U.S. national application has been acted upon by an examiner to whom the national application was assigned on the basis of the controlling (not necessarily the first) claim, a subsequent PCT application claiming priority of the national application will normally be assigned to the same examiner, or to the examiner's art unit in his/her absence.

24 PCTs In all other situations where a U.S. national application and a corresponding PCT application are copending, irrespective of which application was filed first, every effort should be made to ensure that both applications are assigned for search and examination to the examiner to whom the PCT application would normally be assigned on the basis of the first claimed invention, or to the examiner's art unit in his/her absence.

25 Information Resources for Classification MPEP (a) MPEP (a) n Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System – Available online at:

26 Within the overlap of biotechnology and mechanical arts, an issue sometimes occurs wherein a claim recites an apparatus (as opposed to a method) with certain elements “attached to” the human body or specific body parts. Combinations Including Parts of the Human Body

27 Functional Recitations Limitations to parts of the human body presents no problem as long as the language is recited in the format “adapted to be attached” or “for attachment to” or in some similar way which does not positively set forth the human body or portions thereof as part of the claimed subject matter.

28 Claimed Combination But what about those situations where the portion of the human body is actually set forth as part of the claimed combination?

29 MPEP Patentable Subject Matter If the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human being, then a rejection under 35 USC 101 must be made indicating that the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.

30 On April 7, 1987, then Assistant Secretary and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Donald J. Quigg, set forth PTO policy on this issue in the form of a notice entitled “Animals – Patentability”. Animals-Patentability

31 Animals-Patentability The notice stated that the “Patent and Trademark Office would now consider nonnaturally occurring non-human multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101”

32 Animals-Patentability The Commissioner stated that a “claim directed to or including within its scope a human being will not be considered to be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101” since the grant of a limited, but exclusive property right in a human being is prohibited by the Constitution.

33 Claimed Combination Accordingly, where a claim is directed to apparatus “attached to” the human body or any part thereof an examiner is to reject such claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.

st Paragraph However, claims which contain language “attached to” a part of the human body raise an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 but do not inherently raise questions of enablement or indefiniteness.

35 Example An intravascular stent which is permanently implanted in the vessel lumen of a patient and which is used for locally delivering genes in a vessel comprising: (a) a substrate, (b) a coating adhering to the substrate, and (c) a genetic material which is adsorbed to the surface of the coating, wherein the coating comprises a matrix of randomly interconnected protein molecules comprising one or more species of protein.

36 Example An intravascular stent FOR permanent implantation in the vessel lumen of a patient and which is used for locally delivering genes in a vessel comprising: (a) a substrate, (b) a coating adhering to the substrate, and (c) a genetic material which is adsorbed to the surface of the coating, wherein the coating comprises a matrix of randomly interconnected protein molecules comprising one or more species of protein.

37 Questions? THOMAS BARRETT TC3700TQAS