What information must be included in a viability statement for non-Budapest Treaty deposits?
For biological material deposits not made under the Budapest Treaty, a viability statement must be filed with the patent application. According to MPEP 2409 and 37 CFR 1.807(b), this statement must contain: The name and address of the depository The name and address of the depositor The date of deposit The identity of the deposit…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for viability of deposited biological materials?
The viability of deposited biological materials is a crucial aspect of the deposit process. According to MPEP 2410.01, the following requirements apply: The deposit must be viable at the time it is made. The deposit must be tested for viability. The deposit must be replaced if it becomes non-viable. As stated in the MPEP: “The…
Read MoreWhat is the viability requirement for biological material deposits in patent applications?
According to MPEP 2409, the viability requirement for biological material deposits is essentially a requirement that the deposited material is capable of reproduction. This is outlined in 37 CFR 1.807(a), which states: “A deposit of biological material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly must be viable at the time of deposit and…
Read MoreHow does the Vanda case relate to the treatment or prophylaxis consideration in Step 2A Prong Two?
The Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. case is significant in the context of the treatment or prophylaxis consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2): “Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 126 USPQ2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims in Vanda recited a method of…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application?
A valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application can take two forms, as specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(c): Filing a continuing application (with additional requirements if the original application hasn’t been internationally registered) A grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1052 for applications filed indirectly with the USPTO The…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)? A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02: “The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically…
Read MoreCan a filing date be vacated after it has been assigned to an ex parte reexamination request?
Yes, a filing date can be vacated after it has been assigned to an ex parte reexamination request if non-compliance issues are discovered during the examiner’s review. The MPEP 2227 outlines this process: “If, in the process of reviewing the request, the examiner notes a non-compliance item not earlier recognized, the examiner will communicate with…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for utility in research tools and intermediate products?
The USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.” The MPEP emphasizes that…
Read MoreWhat is the utility requirement for patents?
The utility requirement for patents stipulates that a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial, and credible. The MPEP states: “A claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible.“ This requirement ensures that patents are granted only for inventions that have a…
Read MoreWhat is the utility requirement in patent law?
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with…
Read More