Can biological material descriptions be supplemented after the filing date of a patent application?
Can biological material descriptions be supplemented after the filing date of a patent application? Generally, supplementing biological material descriptions after the filing date is not allowed and can lead to issues: New matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Loss of priority date for added material Potential invalidity of the patent MPEP 2406.01 states: “Information which…
Read MoreHow can I respond to a rejection based on a biological material deposit issue?
According to MPEP 2411.02, there are three ways to respond to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 based on the absence of access to a biological material: Make an acceptable original, replacement, or supplemental deposit in accordance with the regulations. Provide a written assurance that an acceptable deposit will be made on or before the…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for releasing biological material deposits to the public?
What are the requirements for releasing biological material deposits to the public? The requirements for releasing biological material deposits to the public are detailed in MPEP 2410.01. The key requirement is: “All restrictions on availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent disclosing the deposit.”…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for replying to a rejection based on a deposit issue?
When replying to a rejection based on a deposit issue, applicants must meet specific requirements as outlined in MPEP 2411.02. The key requirements include: Providing a statement that the deposit has been made and that all restrictions on access will be removed upon grant of a patent. Supplying the deposit accession number and any other…
Read MoreCan a biological material deposit be referenced in a patent application even if it’s not required?
Yes, a biological material deposit can be referenced in a patent application even if it’s not required to satisfy the statutory requirements for patentability. According to MPEP 2404: “A reference to a deposit may be included in a specification even though the deposit is not required to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.“ This…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of the written description requirement for biological material deposits?
What is the purpose of the written description requirement for biological material deposits? The written description requirement for biological material deposits serves two main purposes: To ensure that the public receives something in return for the patent grant To demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing…
Read MoreCan I make a biological material deposit after a patent has been issued?
No, you cannot make an original biological material deposit after a patent has been issued. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2406 clearly states: “Insofar as the rules do not permit post-issuance original deposits, the failure to make an original deposit in an application cannot be cured by filing a reissue application or instituting…
Read MoreWhat are the international considerations for timing of biological material deposits?
While the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows for some flexibility in the timing of biological material deposits, it’s crucial to consider international patent requirements. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2406 notes: “Note that while 37 CFR 1.804 permits making a deposit after the filing date of an application, in many…
Read MoreWhat exception is allowed regarding restrictions on deposited biological material?
The MPEP 2410.01 outlines one exception to the general rule of removing all restrictions on deposited biological material upon patent grant. This exception, as specified in 37 CFR 1.808(b), allows the depositor to contract with the depository to require that samples be furnished only if a request meets one or all of these conditions: The…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of Ex parte Hildebrand in relation to biological material deposits?
The case of Ex parte Hildebrand, 15 USPQ2d 1662 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) is mentioned in MPEP 2410.01 in the context of biological material deposits. This case is significant because it reinforces the requirement that all restrictions on access to deposited biological material must be removed upon patent grant, with only the specific…
Read More