What types of evidence can an applicant submit to support enablement?

Applicants can submit various types of evidence to support enablement claims. According to MPEP 2164.05: Factual affidavits under 37 CFR 1.132 References showing what one skilled in the art knew at the time of filing Declarations or affidavits containing factual evidence In chemical and biotechnical applications, evidence submitted to the FDA for clinical trial approval…

Read More

What types of disclosures are considered under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102?

Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, various types of disclosures are considered. According to MPEP 2152.04, the term “disclosure” encompasses the following: Being patented Described in a printed publication In public use On sale Otherwise available to the public Being described in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application The MPEP states:…

Read More

How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?

How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations? The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach: “The Supreme Court in KSR…

Read More

How do treatment or prophylaxis limitations relate to other meaningful limitations?

Treatment or prophylaxis limitations are a specific type of meaningful limitation that can render a claim patent-eligible. These limitations are particularly relevant in medical and biotechnology fields. MPEP 2106.05(e) notes: “With respect to treatment or prophylaxis limitations, such as the immunization step in Classen, examiners should note that the other meaningful limitations consideration overlaps with…

Read More

How do transitional phrases affect the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims?

How do transitional phrases affect the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims? Transitional phrases can significantly impact the interpretation of Markush groups in patent claims: “Consisting of” with Markush groups: Limits the claim to only the listed members of the Markush group. “Comprising” or “including” with Markush groups: Generally interpreted as open-ended, allowing for…

Read More

What is the “transformation or reduction of an article” consideration in practical application analysis?

What is the “transformation or reduction of an article” consideration in practical application analysis? The “transformation or reduction of an article” consideration is one of the factors used to determine if a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106.04(d): “Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to…

Read More

What qualifies as a “transformation” under MPEP 2106.05(c)?

According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance: Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.” Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.” Change: “‘Transformation’ of an…

Read More

How does “transformation” factor into patent eligibility?

Transformation of an article to a different state or thing is an important consideration in patent eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(c) states: “Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.” The MPEP provides some factors to consider:…

Read More