USPTO 101 Guidance: Microneedles Versus Prosthetic Devices

19 May 2016 PharmaPatents Blog

When I first wrote about the new natural products Subject Matter Eligibility Examples issued by the USPTO on May 4, 2016, I noted a puzzling difference between the treatment of a claim reciting a vaccine coated on a microneedle device versus a claim reciting a vaccine formulated in a cream carrier. Suzannah Sundby at Canady + Lortz LLP has pointed out another inconsistency: the USPTO’s treatment of a prosthetic device coated with a naturally-occurring mineral. Whether these differences are accidental or intentional, they reflect the inherent difficulty of applying current patent eligibility paradigms to specific claims.

Prosthetic Device—Eligible Under Streamlined Analysis

The December 16, 2014 Federal Register Notice explaining the USPTO’s 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility included the following guidance:

For purposes of efficiency in examination, a streamlined eligibility analysis can be used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it. Such claims do not need to proceed through the full analysis herein as their eligibility will be self-evident. ….

[A] claim that recites a nature-based product, but clearly does not attempt to tie up the nature-based product, does not require a markedly different characteristics analysis to identify a “product of nature” exception. As an example, a claim directed to an artificial hip prosthesis coated with a naturally occurring mineral is not an attempt to tie up the mineral.

While the December 2014 set of examples did not include such a claim, this guidance plainly indicates that a claim directed to an artificial hip prosthesis coated with a naturally occurring mineral could be found eligible under a streamlined analysis.

Cream Carrier—Eligible Under Markedly Different Analysis

The May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples include the following claim in Example 28:

4. A vaccine comprising:
Peptide F; and
a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier selected from the group consisting of a cream, emulsion, gel, liposome, nanoparticle or ointment.

The claim is determined to be eligible based on a “markedly different” analysis, because “[t]he claimed cream has different structural and physical characteristics than its naturally occurring components,” including properties that make it “adhere to a patient’s skin or mucous membranes much longer.” Because the claim is determined to be eligible at Step 2A of the USPTO’s framework, it is not subject to the “significantly more” analysis of Step 2B.

Microneedle Device—Eligible Under Significantly More Analysis

The May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples include the following claim in Example 28:

7. A vaccine delivery device comprising a microneedle array that is coated with a vaccine comprising Peptide F.

Rather than determining that the claim is eligible because, like the mineral-coated prosthetic device, it “clearly does not attempt to tie up the nature-based product,” the example subjects the claim to a full analysis. Indeed, the claim is said to fail the “markedly different” test because there is no indication that isolating the peptide from the virus or coating it on the microneedle array results in any different structural or functional characteristics. The claim is found eligible under the “significantly more” test, but only because “at the time the application was filed” it was not “conventional” to use microneedle arrays to deliver vaccines.

Figuring Out The New Examples

On May 25, 2016 I will be discussing the new examples with Raul Tamayo (Senior Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration at the USPTO) and Kevin Noonan (McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) on an IPO Chat Channel program. I plan to ask Mr. Tamayo to explain the USPTO’s reasoning behind these examples, and hope you will join us as we figure out the new USPTO 101 guidance.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services