Presentation for Massachusetts Association of Technology Transfer Offices April 25 2018 Elizabeth Spar Sunstein Kann Murphy amp Timbers LLP 2018 Sunstein Kann Murphy amp Timbers LLP ID: 725187
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Recent USPTO Developments on Subject Mat..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Recent USPTO Developments on Subject Matter Eligibility
Presentation for
Massachusetts Association of Technology Transfer Offices
April 25, 2018
Elizabeth Spar
Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
©
2018
Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLPSlide2
USPTO Response to 101 Decisions
2
Since the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank in June 2014, the USPTO regularly issues new memoranda explaining its implementation of
the §
101 framework.Slide3
3Slide4
USPTO Revisions to MPEP Incorporate Guidance from USPTO Memorandum
In late January, the USPTO incorporated each of its earlier memoranda into the MPEP.
The sections that the USPTO amended to include its Mayo/Alice guidance are in chapter 2100.
4Slide5
Updates to MPEP
The new cases and examples follow from the Mayo/Alice line of cases.
2106.04 repeats the guidance of the Enfish memo:
Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis).
5Slide6
Patent Examiners are citing to these decisions
... mere physical
or tangible nature of
additional elements
such as the obtaining and
detecting steps
does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract
idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).... this
type of correlation is a consequence of natural processes, similar to the naturally occurring correlation found to be a law of nature by the Supreme Court in Mayo).... just as PCR was identified in Ariosa v. Sequenom as “well-known, routine and conventional” ... the methods encompassed by the instant claims are well-known, routine and conventional.
6Slide7
Recently Issued Diagnostic Claims U.S. 9,939,449 – Issued April 10, 2018
1. (
Original
) A method for diagnosing and treating an anxiety disorder in a female subject, comprising:
a.
analyzing
pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) expression levels in a tissue sample collected from a female subject;
b. diagnosing
the anxiety disorder in the female subject having elevated tissue PACAP expression levels as compared to a control tissue sample obtained from a subject who does not have an anxiety disorder; andc. treating the anxiety disorder in the female subject diagnosed in (b). 7Slide8
The Office Action
... Step
(c) requires treating the disorder. However, for such treatment to add significantly more, it must practically apply the judicial exception
...
In this case, step (c) does not relate to the judicial exception. It does not require practically applying steps (a) and (b). Step (c) is no more than instructions to treat a disorder, including using known, conventional therapies.
Since step (c) is in no way reliant on the judicial exception, it does not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
8Slide9
U.S. 9,939,449- Claim Amendments
1
.
(
Amended
)
A method for diagnosing and treating
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) an anxiety disorder in a female subject, comprising:a. analyzing
pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) expression levels in a tissue sample collected from a female subject; b. diagnosing PTSD the anxiety disorder in the female subject having elevated tissue PACAP expression levels as compared to a control tissue sample obtained from a subject who does not have PTSD an anxiety disorder
; andc. treating the anxiety disorder in administering to the female subject diagnosed in (b) a therapeutically effective amount of an antibody that binds specifically to an epitope at the carboxy-terminal end of PACAP.
9Slide10
The Office Action
The rejection under 101 is withdrawn in light of the amendments. The treatment step now practically applies the judicial exception and is considered to elevate the claim as a whole to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
10Slide11
Recently Issued Diagnostic Claims
US
9,939,449 –
Issued
April 10,
2018
11
1. (
Original) A method of determining an increased likelihood of prostate cancer cells in a subject to metastasize, comprising detecting in a sample comprising prostate cancer cells from the subject over-expression of a nucleic acid of ABCD3 compared to expression levels of a nucleic acid of ABCD3 from a control, the over-expression of a nucleic acid of ABCD3 in prostate cancer cells being indicative of an increased likelihood of prostate cancer cells in the subject to metastasize.Slide12
The Office Action
The claims do not recite something “significantly more than the judicial exception(s); rather, the claims “simply inform” the natural phenomenon to one performing routine active method steps and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
12Slide13
US 9,939,449 Claim Amendments
13
1. (
Amended
) A
method of
determining an
diagnosing and treating an increased likelihood of prostate cancer
cell metastasis in a subjectcells in a subject to metastasize, the method comprising: a. obtaining a sample comprising prostate cancer cells from a subject;
b.
detecting expression of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
in the sample and determining whether the expression of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
is overexpressed
in a sample comprising
prostate
cancer cells from the subject over expression of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
compared to expression levels of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
from a control
;
c. diagnosing the subject with
,
the overexpression of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
in prostate
cancer cells
being indicative of
an increased likelihood of prostate cancer
cell
metastasis
when the nucleic acid
ABCD3
is overexpressed; and
d. administering an aggressive treatment of prostate removal, radiation, chemotherapy or a combination thereof to the subject
cells in the subject to metastasize
. Slide14
The Office Action
14
In an effort to expedite prosecution, it is noted the following amendment to claim 1 would obviate this rejection by adding a step that would result in a claimed combination of steps that would not be considered conventional or routine:” ...b. detecting expression of nucleic acid ABCD3 in the sample
by amplifying ABCD3 nucleic acid using a primer pair that specifically amplifies ABCD3 nucleic acid
and determining whether...Slide15
15
1
. (Amended) A method of diagnosing and treating an increased likelihood of prostate cancer cell metastasis in a subject, the method comprising:
a. obtaining a sample comprising prostate cancer cells from a subject;
b. detecting expression of a nucleic acid of
ABCD3
in the sample
by amplifying
ABCD3 nucleic acid using a primer pair that specifically amplifies ABCD3 nucleic acid and determining whether the expression of a nucleic acid of ABCD3 is overexpressed compared to expression levels of a nucleic acid of ABCD3 from a control; c. diagnosing the subject with an increased likelihood of prostate cancer cell metastasis when the nucleic acid ABCD3 is overexpressed; and d. administering an aggressive treatment of prostate removal, radiation, chemotherapy or a combination thereof to the subject.Slide16
Conclusion
There is some hope for diagnostic claims.
It may be useful to modify claim language based on claims that have been allowed, although there is inconsistency between examiners.
Take advantage of the Revised MPEP and use the
examples provided.
Interview.
16Slide17
Thank you.
Elizabeth N. Spar
espar@sunsteinlaw.com
17