Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631 (703) 308-4028 Bioinformatics & §101

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patent Prosecution June 2013 June 13, 2013.
Advertisements

Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1631 (703) SNiPpetS & Bytes
35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph Long V. Le SPE, AU 1641 (703)
Rule 105 Requirements in Plant Patent Applications Bruce Campell Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit
Software: To Patent or Not? Jeffrey P. Kushan Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, LLP.
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
More on Restriction Practice Jim Housel SPE, Art Unit 1648 (703)
Recent Cases on Patentable Subject Matter and Patent Exhaustion Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A. Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes.
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 Bioinformatics Practice Considerations October 20, 2011 Ling Zhong, Ph.D.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE A full transcript of this presentation can be found under the “Notes” Tab. Claim Interpretation: Broadest Reasonable.
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
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.
CS 5060, Fall 2009 Digital Intellectual Property Law Drafting a software patent application October 19th Lecture.
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.
Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S The EPO‘s approach in assessing inventive step for antibody claims Dr. Andreas Hübel M I C H A L S K I H Ü T T E R M A N.
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.
In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter December 2, 2008 John King Ron Schoenbaum.
EVALUATING SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 U. S. C
Greg H. Gardella Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Tactics AIPLA 2010 Winter Institute.
1 TC 1600 Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101 Andrew Wang SPE 1631 (571)
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
Examiner Guidelines After Alice Corp. August 21, 2014 How Much “More” is “Significantly More”?
Examining Functional Claim Limitations: Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.
AIPLA Annual Meeting 2014 Corporate Breakfast Stephen E. Bondura Dority & Manning, P.A. October 23, 2014 Preserving Privilege in Prosecution Matters 1.
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
35 USC 101 Update Business Methods Partnership Meeting, Spring 2008 by Robert Weinhardt Business Practice Specialist, Technology Center 3600
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
Categories of Claims in the Field of CII Edoardo Pastore European Patent Office Torino, October 2011.
1 John Calvert Supervisory Patent Examiner
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
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)
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
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.
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
Pilot Concerning Public Submission of Peer Reviewed Prior Art Jack Harvey Director, TC 2100.
How to Claim your Biotech- Based Invention Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ARDIN MARSCHEL SPE AU 1631 (571)
Effective Public Speaking
Software Protection in Korea Ways to protect software-related inventions –Software Patent –Computer Program Copyright –Trade Secret –Confidentiality Contract.
USPTO Biotechnology, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting June 30, 2016 Stakeholder’s Perspective on Patent Quality Initiative Frank.
Alexandria, Virginia July 21, 2014
Prosecution Group Luncheon
Preparing a Patent Application
Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Patentability of AI related inventions
Comparing subject matter eligibility in us and eu
Protection of AI Inventions in Japan
Preparing a Patent Application
Subject Matter Eligibility
Patentable Subject Matter in Korea
Presentation transcript:

Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631 (703) Bioinformatics & §101

NonStatutory Subject Matter Claims to bioinformatics-related inventions that are clearly nonstatutory fall into the same general categories as nonstatutory claims in other arts.

Case Law Impacting Bioinformatics In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure stored on a computer readable medium and that increases computer efficiency held statutory subject matter) In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure per se held nonstatutory subject matter where data structure did not cause functional change in computer)

Functional Descriptive Material Consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component.

Data Structure Defined “a physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions.” (The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 308 (5 th ed. 1993))

Nonfunctional Descriptive Material Includes but is not limited to music, literary works and a compilation or mere arrangement of data

Neither type of “descriptive” material is statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se

Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material stored in a computer-readable medium does not make it statutory.

Case Law Impacting Bioinformatics In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

A Common Situation a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.

Obviousness and Non-Functional Descriptive Material If the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is limited to descriptive material stored on or employed by a machine, Office personnel must determine whether the descriptive material is functional descriptive material or nonfunctional descriptive material. Functional descriptive material is a limitation in the claim and must be considered and addressed in assessing patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103.

Obviousness and Non-Functional Descriptive Material (Cont.) Thus, a rejection of the claim as a whole under 35 U.S.C. 103 is inappropriate unless the functional descriptive material would have been suggested by the prior art. Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious.

A Virtual Life Example A method of determining the most hydrophilic peptide in a polypeptide comprising a sequence of at least six amino acid residues which method comprises: (a) determining the amino acid sequence of said polypeptide; (b) assigning relative hydrophilicity values to each sequenced amino acid; (c) determining the repetitive local average of hydrophilicity values on the basis of said assigned values of each residue of at least six amino acids sequentially along said polypeptide; (d) comparing said repetitive local averages and selecting the peptide of at least six amino acid residues corresponding to the greatest local average hydrophilicity..

Pending Claim 1. A method of determining the most hydrophilic peptide in a polypeptide comprising a sequence of at least six amino acid residues which method comprises: (a) inputting SEQ ID NO:2; (b) assigning relative hydrophilicity values to each sequenced amino acid; (c) determining the repetitive local average of hydrophilicity values on the basis of said assigned values of each residue of at least six amino acids sequentially along said polypeptide; (d) comparing said repetitive local averages and determining the peptide of at least six amino acid residues corresponding to the greatest local average hydrophilicity.

Conclusion Because the specifically recited SEQ ID NO: 2 is mere data and does not alter the actual process steps the claim would be rejected as obvious over the reference disclosure.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Applicants should be increasingly aware of overlapping biotech and computer technologies To the extent that an invention overlaps into the computer arts, biotech attorney should become familiar with the Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions Consult MPEP for information on the submission of computer programs and/or flow charts. htm

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Avoid claims to a computer readable media with sequence data on it. These claims are drawn to non statutory descriptive matter. However, a claim to a software program on a disk may be statutory.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Take care to distinguish clearly between manipulation of molecules and sequence information, e.g., software that deletes flanking vector sequences from insert sequences after sequencing a clone. Do not phrase the claim to recite deletion of nucleic acids from the vector nucleic acid, if you really intend to refer to sequence data or information.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Come in for Interviews: Clarity of and support for claim language has been a central issue. Claims tend to be extremely broad and actual embodiments are frequently difficult to understand which has led to confusion. Both applicants and their representatives have been wonderfully cooperative in having interviews and explaining their inventions.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Consider both the biotechnology aspects and the computer software aspects of the invention; make sure the disclosure is ample for both. Trap: citing an example of a computer program which you assert can be adapted to perform the computer aspects of the invention. During prosecution you may become aware of the fine points of the computer components which may render the claims patentable but the specification may provide inadequate support for a specific computer.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Assert a practical utility and disclose how it is realized in the specification. Submit an IDS, especially foreign patents and NPL to assist examiner. Provide the most relevant prior art in usable form and information on the state of the art. Disclose and claim clearly what is the real invention.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Provide more information regarding the significance of art recognized terminology used in the patent application. Define such terms in the specification. –These terms may be hard to search. –It may not be clear how broadly these terms are being applied. –Be especially clear as to how the invention differs from the prior art as many statistical techniques and mathematical elements are prior art but are difficult to find in searches.

Tips for Bioinformatics Applicants Pay attention to the sequence rules, especially formal matters pertaining to references to sequences