It is essential that patent applicants obtain a prompt yet complete examination of their applications. Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim should be reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability in the initial review of the application, even if one or more claims are found to be deficient with respect to some statutory requirement. Thus, examiners should state all reasons and bases for rejecting claims in the first Office action. Deficiencies should be explained clearly, particularly when they serve as a basis for a rejection. Whenever practicable, examiners and patent reexamination specialists should indicate how rejections may be overcome and how problems may be resolved. Where a rejection not based on prior art is proper (lack of adequate written description, enablement, or utility, etc.) such rejection should be stated with a full development of the reasons rather than by a mere conclusion. A failure to follow this approach can lead to unnecessary delays in the prosecution of the application.
The examination of reissue applications is covered in MPEP Chapter 1400, reexamination proceedings are covered in MPEP Chapters 2200 (ex parte) and 2600 (inter partes), and supplemental examination is covered in MPEP Chapter 2800.
Prior to focusing on specific statutory requirements, examiners must begin examination by determining what, precisely, the inventor or joint inventor has invented and is seeking to patent, and how the claims relate to and define that invention. Examiners will review the complete specification, including the detailed description of the invention, any specific embodiments that have been disclosed, the claims and any specific, substantial, and credible utilities that have been asserted for the invention.
After obtaining an understanding of the invention, the examiner will conduct a search of the prior art and determine whether the invention as claimed complies with all statutory requirements.
The claimed invention as a whole must be useful. The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96 (1966); In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Examiners should review the application to identify any asserted utility. The applicant or the inventor is in the best position to explain why an invention is useful. Accordingly, a complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant asserts the claimed invention is useful. Such a statement will usually explain the purpose of the invention or how the invention may be used (e.g., a compound is believed to be useful in the treatment of a particular disorder). Note that the concept of a "practical application" in the evaluation of utility is different from the concept of whether a judicial exception is integrated into a "practical application" in the evaluation of subject matter eligibility. Regardless of the form of statement of utility, it must enable one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand why the applicant asserts the claimed invention is useful. See MPEP § 2106 for subject matter eligibility guidelines and MPEP § 2107 for utility examination guidelines. The application may describe more than one utility and practical application, but only one is necessary. Alternatively, an applicant may rely on the contemporaneous art to provide that the claimed invention has a well-established utility.
The written description will provide the clearest explanation of the invention, by exemplifying the invention, explaining how it relates to the prior art and explaining the relative significance of various features of the invention. Accordingly, examiners should continue their evaluation by:
Patent applicants can assist the USPTO by preparing applications that clearly set forth these aspects of an invention.
The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
Examiners should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to either machines, manufactures or compositions of matter.
Examiners should then correlate each claim limitation to all portions of the disclosure that describe the claim limitation. This is to be done in all cases, regardless of whether the claimed invention is defined using means- (or step-) plus- function language. The correlation step will ensure that examiners correctly interpret each claim limitation in light of the specification.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). For more information about these types of claim language and how to determine whether they have a limiting effect on claim scope, see MPEP §§ 2111.02 through 2111.05.
Examiners are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. See MPEP § 2111. Disclosure may be express, implicit, or inherent. Examiners are to give claimed means- (or step-) plus- function limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with all corresponding structures (or materials or acts) described in the specification and their equivalents. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further guidance in interpreting the scope of equivalents is provided in MPEP §§ 2181 through 2186.
While it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II. As explained in MPEP § 2111, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution will reduce the possibility that the claim, when issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.
Finally, when evaluating the scope of a claim, every limitation in the claim must be considered. Examiners may not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981) ("In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole. It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made.").
Prior to evaluating the claimed invention for patentability, examiners are expected to conduct a thorough search of the prior art. See MPEP §§ 904 through 904.03 for more information about how to conduct a search. In many cases, the result of such a search will contribute to examiners' understanding of the invention. Both claimed and unclaimed aspects of the invention described in the specification should be searched if there is a reasonable expectation that the unclaimed aspects may be later claimed. A search must take into account any structure or material described in the specification and its equivalents which correspond to the claimed means- (or step-) plus- function limitation, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and MPEP § 2181 through MPEP § 2186.
Section 101 of title 35, United States Code, provides:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing four requirements: (i) only one patent may be obtained for an invention; (ii) the inventor(s) must be identified in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 or must be the applicant in applications filed before September 16, 2012; (iii) the claimed invention must be eligible for patenting; and (iv) the claimed invention must be useful (have utility).
See MPEP § 2104 for a discussion of the four requirements, MPEP § 2106 for a discussion of eligibility, and MPEP § 2107 for the utility examination guidelines.
The patent eligibility inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 101 is a threshold inquiry. Even if a claimed invention qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must also satisfy the other conditions and requirements of the patent laws, including the requirements for novelty (35 U.S.C. 102 ), nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103 ), and adequate description and definite claiming (35 U.S.C. 112 ). Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010). Therefore, examiners should avoid focusing on only issues of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 to the detriment of considering an application for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 103, and 35 U.S.C. 112, and should avoid treating an application solely on the basis of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 except in the most extreme cases.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) contains two separate and distinct requirements: (A) that the claim(s) set forth the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and (B) that the claim(s) particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. An application will be deficient under the first requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when evidence outside the application as filed, e.g., admissions, shows that the inventor or a joint inventor regards the invention to be different from what is claimed (see MPEP § 2171 - MPEP § 2172.01).
An application fails to comply with the second requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when the claims do not set out and define the invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In this regard, the definiteness of the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the disclosure as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s claims, interpreted in light of the disclosure, must reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the invention.
The scope of a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is defined as the corresponding structure or material set forth in the written description and equivalents thereof that perform the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181 through MPEP § 2186. See MPEP § 2173 et seq. for a discussion of a variety of issues pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) requirement that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) contains three separate and distinct requirements:
For the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention. See MPEP § 2163 for further guidance with respect to the evaluation of a patent application for compliance with the written description requirement.
An applicant’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The fact that experimentation is complex, however, will not make it undue if a person of skill in the art routinely engages in such experimentation.
See MPEP § 2164 et seq. for detailed guidance with regard to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Determining compliance with the best mode requirement requires a two-prong inquiry:
See MPEP § 2165 et seq. for additional guidance. Deficiencies related to disclosure of the best mode for carrying out the claimed invention are not usually encountered during examination of an application because evidence to support such a deficiency is seldom in the record. Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1548-49, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1804-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Reviewing a claimed invention for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C.103 begins with a comparison of the claimed subject matter to what is known in the prior art. See MPEP §§ 2131 - 2146 and MPEP §§ 2150 - 2159 for specific guidance on patentability determinations under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. If no differences are found between the claimed invention and the prior art, then the claimed invention lacks novelty and is to be rejected by USPTO personnel under 35 U.S.C. 102. Once differences are identified between the claimed invention and the prior art, those differences must be assessed and resolved in light of the knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Against this backdrop, one must determine whether the invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. If not, the claimed invention satisfies 35 U.S.C. 103.
Once examiners have completed the above analyses of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm that a prima facie case of unpatentability exists. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them.
EXAMINERS SHOULD USE THE APPLICABLE FORM PARAGRAPHS IN OFFICE ACTIONS TO STATE THE BASIS FOR ANY OBJECTIONS OR REJECTIONS TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION OR REJECTION.
Patents are not granted for all new and useful inventions and discoveries. For example, the subject matter of the invention or discovery must come within the boundaries set forth by 35 U.S.C. 101, which permits a patent to be granted only for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing four requirements, which are described below.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only ONE patent therefor. Thus, it prevents two patents issuing on the same invention to the same inventor (i.e., the same inventive entity) or where there is a common (joint) inventor or common applicant/assignee. The "same invention" means that identical subject matter is being claimed. This requirement forms the basis for statutory double patenting rejections. If more than one patent is sought, a patent applicant will receive a statutory double patenting rejection for claims included in more than one application that are directed to the same invention.
See MPEP § 804 for a full discussion of the prohibition against double patenting. Use form paragraphs 8.30, 8.31 and 8.32 for statutory double patenting rejections.
The inventor(s) must be the applicant in an application filed before September 16, 2012, (except as otherwise provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b) ) and the inventor or each joint inventor must be identified in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 2109 for a detailed discussion of inventorship and MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq. for details regarding correction of inventorship.
In the rare situation where it is clear the application does not name the correct inventorship and the applicant has not filed a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 for applications subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (see MPEP § 2157) or under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (see MPEP § 2137).
A claimed invention must be eligible for patenting. As explained in MPEP § 2106, there are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility: (a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter; and (b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception). The judicial exceptions are subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 66, 70, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)). See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).
See MPEP § 2106 for a discussion of subject matter eligibility in general, and the analytical framework that is to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter, MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of the statutory categories of invention, MPEP § 2106.04 for a discussion of the judicial exceptions, and MPEP § 2106.05 for a discussion of how to evaluate claims directed to a judicial exception for eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) for form paragraphs for use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of subject matter eligibility. See also MPEP § 2105 for more information about claiming living subject matter, as well as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)'s prohibition against claiming human organisms.
Eligible subject matter is further limited by the Atomic Energy Act explained in MPEP § 2104.01, which prohibits patents granted on any invention or discovery that is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
A claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible.
A rejection on the ground of lack of utility is appropriate when (1) it is not apparent why the invention is "useful" because applicant has failed to identify any specific and substantial utility and there is no well established utility, or (2) an assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention is not credible. Such a rejection can include the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, such as inventions involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy. See Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1367-68, 51 USPQ2d 1700, 1702-03 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[Y]ears ago courts invalidated patents on gambling devices on the ground that they were immoral…, but that is no longer the law…Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace and general welfare of the community are promoted…we find no basis in section 101 to hold that inventions can be ruled unpatentable for lack of utility simply because they have the capacity to fool some members of the public.").
The statutory basis for this rejection is 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2107 for guidelines governing rejections for lack of utility. See MPEP §§ 2107.01 - 2107.03 for legal precedent governing the utility requirement. See MPEP § 2107.02, subsection IV, for form paragraphs to be used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failure to satisfy the utility requirement.
A limitation on what can be patented is imposed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 151(a) (42 U.S.C. 2181(a)) thereof reads in part as follows:
No patent shall hereafter be granted for any invention or discovery which is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The terms "atomic energy" and "special nuclear material" are defined in Section 11 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2014).
Sections 151(c) and 151(d) (42 U.S.C. 2181(c) and (d)) set up categories of pending applications relating to atomic energy that must be brought to the attention of the Department of Energy. Under 37 CFR 1.14(d), applications for patents which disclose or which appear to disclose, or which purport to disclose, inventions or discoveries relating to atomic energy are reported to the Department of Energy and the Department will be given access to such applications, but such reporting does not constitute a determination that the subject matter of each application so reported is in fact useful or an invention or discovery or that such application in fact discloses subject matter in categories specified by the Atomic Energy Act.
All applications received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are screened by Licensing and Review personnel, under 37 CFR 1.14(d), in order for the Director to fulfill his or her responsibilities under section 151(d) (42 U.S.C. 2181(d)) of the Atomic Energy Act. Papers subsequently added must be inspected promptly by the examiner when received to determine whether the application has been amended to relate to atomic energy and those so related must be promptly forwarded to Licensing and Review.
All rejections based upon sections 151(a) (42 U.S.C. 2181(a)), 152 (42 U.S.C. 2182), and 155 (42 U.S.C. 2185) of the Atomic Energy Act must be made only by Licensing and Review personnel.
Prior to 1980, it was widely believed that living subject matter was not eligible for patenting, either because such subject matter did not fall within a statutory category, or because it was a judicial exception to patent eligibility. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980), made it clear that the question of whether an invention embraces living matter is irrelevant to the issue of patent eligibility. Note, however, that Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from eligibility. See The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. 112-29, sec. 33(a), 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
In Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court held that a claim to a genetically engineered bacterium was directed to at least one of the four statutory categories, because the bacterium was a "manufacture" and/or a "composition of matter." In its opinion, the Court stated that "Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope" because it chose to draft 35 U.S.C. 101 using "such expansive terms as ‘manufacture’ and ‘composition of matter,’ modified by the comprehensive ‘any.’" 447 U.S. at 308, 206 USPQ at 197. The Court also determined that the distinction between living and inanimate things was not relevant for subject matter eligibility. 447 U.S. at 313, 206 USPQ at 199. Thus, the Court held that living subject matter with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, such as the claimed bacterium produced by genetic engineering, is not excluded from patent protection by 35 U.S.C. 101. 447 U.S. at 310, 206 USPQ at 197.
Following the reasoning in Chakrabarty, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determined that animals are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In Ex parte Allen, 2 USPQ2d 1425 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), the Board decided that a non-naturally occurring polyploid Pacific coast oyster could have been the proper subject of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101 if all the criteria for patentability were satisfied. Shortly after the Allen decision, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks issued a notice (Animals - Patentability, 1077 O.G. 24, April 21, 1987) stating that the Patent and Trademark Office "now considers nonnaturally occurring, non-human multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101."
With respect to plant subject matter, the Supreme Court held that patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 includes newly developed plant breeds, even though plant protection is also available under the Plant Patent Act (35 U.S.C. 161 - 164 ) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et. seq.). J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’ l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143-46, 60 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (2001) (The scope of coverage of 35 U.S.C. 101 is not limited by the Plant Patent Act or the Plant Variety Protection Act; each statute can be regarded as effective because of its different requirements and protections).
See MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of the categories of statutory subject matter.
The Supreme Court in Chakrabarty held a claim to a genetically engineered bacterium eligible, because the claimed bacterium was not a "product of nature" exception. As the Court explained, the modified bacterium was patentable because the patent claim was not to a "hitherto unknown natural phenomenon," but instead had "markedly different characteristics from any found in nature," due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading oil. 447 U.S. at 309-10, 206 USPQ at 197.
Subsequent judicial decisions have made clear that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chakrabarty is "central" to the eligibility inquiry with respect to nature-based products. See, e.g., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 590, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). For example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that "discoveries that possess ‘markedly different characteristics from any found in nature,’ … are eligible for patent protection." In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1336, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 310, 206 USPQ2d at 197). In Roslin, the claimed invention was a live-born clone of a pre-existing, non-embryonic, donor mammal selected from cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats. An embodiment of the claimed invention was the famous Dolly the Sheep, which the court stated was "the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell." Despite acknowledging that the method used to create the claimed clones "constituted a breakthrough in scientific discovery", the court relied on Chakrabarty in holding the claims ineligible because "Dolly herself is an exact genetic replica of another sheep and does not possess ‘markedly different characteristics from any [farm animals] found in nature.’" Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671.
See MPEP § 2106.04 for a discussion of the judicial exceptions in general, MPEP § 2106.04(b), subsection II, for a discussion of products of nature, and MPEP § 2106.04(c) for a discussion of the markedly different characteristics analysis that examiners should use to determine whether a nature-based product such as living subject matter is eligible for patent protection.
Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from patentability. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33(a), 125 Stat. 284, states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
The legislative history of the AIA includes the following statement, which sheds light on the meaning of this provision:
[T]he U.S. Patent Office has already issued patents on genes, stems cells, animals with human genes, and a host of non-biologic products used by humans, but it has not issued patents on claims directed to human organisms, including human embryos and fetuses. My amendment would not affect the former, but would simply affirm the latter.
157 Cong. Rec. E1177-04 (testimony of Representative Dave Weldon previously presented in connection with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-199, 634, 118 Stat. 3, 101, and later resubmitted with regard to the AIA; see 149 Cong. Rec. E2417-01). Thus, section 33(a) of the AIA codifies existing Office policy that human organisms are not patent-eligible subject matter.
If the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human organism, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and AIA sec. 33(a) must be made indicating that the claimed invention is directed to a human organism and is therefore nonstatutory subject matter. Furthermore, the claimed invention must be examined with regard to all issues pertinent to patentability, and any applicable rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112 must also be made.
Use form paragraph 7.04.03 to reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 and AIA sec. 33(a).
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 ). [2]
1. This paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 which quotes 35 U.S.C. 101.
2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert "is" or "are" as appropriate.
3. In bracket 2, explain why the claim is interpreted to read on a human organism.
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP § 2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). See MPEP § 2106.04 for detailed information on the judicial exceptions.
Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012). However, the Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction."). Accordingly, the Court has said that integration of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into a practical application may be eligible for patent p
