“The Squeeze” Art and Enablement Together Yvonne L. Eyler, SPE AU 1646.

Slides:



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

Patenting Antisense Oligonucleotides and Methods
Enablement Issues in the Examination of Antibodies
Written Description: Antibodies Bennett Celsa TC 1600 QAS
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
1 Types of Vaccines and Patentability Considerations Christina Chan Supervisory Primary Examiner Art Unit 1644 Phone:
Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.
More on Restriction Practice Jim Housel SPE, Art Unit 1648 (703)
1 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the Wands Analysis Remy Yucel, SPE 1636 (571)
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Enablement of Method Claims Encompassing the Immunotherapy of Cancer Gary B. Nickol, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit: 1646 United States Patent.
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
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 -
35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph MPEP 2181 – 2186 Jean Witz Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
1 Principles in Restriction Practice TC 1600 Anthony Caputa TC Practice Specialist (571)
Gene Therapy: Overcoming Enablement Rejections Karen M. Hauda Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1632 (703)
Proteomics and “Orphan” Receptors Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
“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.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
Restriction Practice for Genus Claims Species Claims Linking Claims and Markush Claims Julie Burke QAS/PM TC1600.
Issues in Patenting Proteins Jon P Weber, SPE 1657.
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
RESTRICTING BETWEEN PRODUCT and PROCESS INVENTIONS Bruce Campell Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Patenting Antibodies in Europe
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.
1 ANTICIPATION BY INHERENCY IN PRIOR ART James O. Wilson Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department.
Patenting Interfering RNA
Overcoming Prior Art References Non-Enabling Prior Art References Gary Kunz SPE Art Unit 1616.
1 Restriction Practice Updates Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph Examination Memorandum Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Election of Species Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626 April 27, 2004.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
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.
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
Restriction Practice for Combinations and Subcombinations
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
Patenting Interfering RNA John LeGuyader – SPE Art Unit 1635 (571)
Anthony Caputa Quality Lead OPQA
Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.
How to Claim your Biotech- Based Invention Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Pharmaceutical Composition Claims and Enablement Robert J. Hill, Jr. Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center
1 Enablement Issues in Pharmaceutical Claims Joseph K. M c Kane Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit Ardin Marschel Supervisory Patent.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
Fordham IP Conference When is an invention ripe for patenting? Particular issues with therapeutic use claims. Dr Penny Gilbert Powell Gilbert LLP.
1 Utility Guidelines, Homology Claims and Anti-Sense Molecule Claims Drew Hissong, Ph.D. dhissong*sughrue.com Sughrue Mion, PLLC
Nov. 26, 2006 Kuzuwa & Partners1 Care required to draft pharma patents and prosecution of pharma patents Ahmedabad, November 26, 2006 Kiyoshi Kuzuwa Patent.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP AIPLA BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE WEBINAR Leslie McDonell The contents of.
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Ahmedabad, November 26, 2006 Kiyoshi Kuzuwa Patent Attorney
Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Patentability Issues and Mechanism Claims
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

“The Squeeze” Art and Enablement Together Yvonne L. Eyler, SPE AU 1646

A proper squeeze is: Applied when an applicant’s disclosure is commensurate with or discloses less than the prior art with respect to the claimed invention Made early in prosecution Designed to appropriately narrow the claimed invention An improper squeeze is: Applied when the applicant’s disclosure is not commensurate with the prior art with respect to the claimed invention i.e., discloses more than the prior art; or Made late in prosecution and not in response to any claim amendments or evidence and/or argument by applicant

Lack of Enablement and Art- Specification Discloses More Than Prior Art  Claim 1: A method of treating ORANGE syndrome comprising administering to a patient an antibody that decreases the level of FL polypeptides associated with fluid retention.

The Specification Discloses  Increased levels of FL polypeptides in ORANGE patients  Cells overexpressing FL in vitro show increased permeability  Mice overexpressing FL show increased fluid retention which is alleviated by administration of antibodies to FL.

The Prior Art Teaches:  Increased levels of FL polypeptide is diagnostic of ORANGE syndrome.

An Improper “Squeeze”  The examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 112 first paragraph because no working examples of reduction of fluid retention in ORANGE patients are present and further questions the applicability of mouse models in general.  The examiner also rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the art, stating that it would be obvious to administer antibodies to reduce the levels of FL polypeptide in ORANGE patients.

Scope of Enablement and Art  Claim 1  A method of treating lung disease comprising administering to a patient an antibody that decreases the level of polypeptides associated with fluid retention.

The Specification Discloses  Increased levels of a novel TP polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 2) are associated with rockin’ pneumonia virus and correlative with fluid retention in the lungs of pneumonia patients.  Administration of antibodies to SEQ ID NO: 2 to pneumonia patients decreased viral load and fluid retention.

The Prior Art Teaches:  Polypeptide BG is elevated in emphysema and increases fluid levels in the lungs of emphysema patients.  Administration of antibodies to BG polypeptide decreases permeability and fluid leakage in cell from emphysema patients.  Suggests that antibodies to BG may be useful in treating emphysema.

Claim Rejections  112 first, scope of enablement  Any lung disease  Any polypeptide associated with fluid retention  103 obviousness rejection  Obvious to use antibodies to BG polypeptide to treat the lung disease, emphysema

Narrower Claim  A method of treating rockin’ pneumonia comprising administering to a patient an antibody that decreases the level of TP polypeptides associated with fluid retention.

Lack of Enablement and Art - Specification Commensurate with Prior Art  Claim 1: A method of treating depression comprising administering agent O.

The Specification Discloses  The specification has no working examples  The specification suggests that agent O may be useful in treating depression because it inhibits a polypeptide Q whose level is elevated in some depressed patients.

The Prior Art Teaches:  Agent O inhibits polypeptide Q in vitro  Polypeptide Q is elevated in some depressed patients  The prior art hypothesizes that Agent O may be useful in treating depression because it inhibits polypeptide Q  The prior art provides no data.

Enablement and/or Art?  In circumstances such as this, where the specification does not appear to add anything not taught by the prior art, the examiner may not have sufficient evidence to determine which rejection is more appropriate, i.e., the art rejection or the enablement rejection. If the specification is enabling, so is the prior art reference, and vice versa.

BOTH Enablement and Art  Based on the limited evidence, the examiner need not choose the more correct rejection as the result is the same in either instance- the claims are unpatentable.  The burden is thus placed on applicant to point out how the teachings of the specification go beyond those of the prior art.  Compact prosecution is served if the examiner makes both rejections in the first instance.

Questions?