Patent: 10,011,820

Summary for Patent: 10,011,820

Title:	Adipose stromal vascular fraction cell constructs
Abstract:	Three-dimensional tissue constructs are described, which may be created by isolating adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells, plating the cells onto a polymer scaffold, and culturing the plated scaffold in a culture of DMEM with approximately 10% FBS.
Inventor(s):	LeBlanc; Amanda J. (Louisville, KY), Hoying; James B. (Louisville, KY), Williams; Stuart K. (Harrods Creek, KY)
Assignee:	UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. (Louisville, KY)
Application Number:	14/348,584
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Comprehensive Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,011,820

Introduction

When analyzing a patent, such as United States Patent 10,011,820, it is crucial to delve into the claims, the patent landscape, and the relevant legal and analytical frameworks. This analysis will help in understanding the patent's validity, potential infringement risks, and its position within the broader intellectual property ecosystem.

Understanding the Patent Claims

To begin with, it is essential to carefully examine the claims of the patent. The claims define the scope of the invention and are critical in determining what is protected under the patent.

Claim Structure and Scope

• Each claim should be analyzed for its specificity, breadth, and the elements it encompasses. For instance, if a claim is too broad, it may be vulnerable to section 102 or 103 rejections for lack of novelty or non-obviousness[3].
• The claims should be evaluated to see if they integrate abstract ideas into practical applications, a key criterion for patent eligibility under the USPTO's guidance updates, especially for AI-related inventions[2].

Claim Examples and Analysis

• For example, if the patent claims a method involving AI, the claims must specify how the AI is applied in a practical manner, such as enhancing the accuracy of speech recognition systems. This practical application is crucial for overcoming section 101 rejections[2].

Patent Landscape and Prior Art

Understanding the patent landscape involves identifying prior art and other relevant patents that could impact the validity or enforceability of the patent.

Prior Art and Anticipation

• A claimed invention can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 if it is anticipated by prior art. This means every element of the claim must be found in a single prior art reference or, in some cases, through a combination of references[3].
• The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool and other resources like the Global Dossier and Common Citation Document (CCD) can be used to identify relevant prior art and assess whether the claimed invention is novel[4].

Non-Obviousness

• Beyond novelty, the invention must also be non-obvious. This involves assessing whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time of the invention. The USPTO's guidance and case law provide frameworks for this analysis[3].

Patent Eligibility Under USPTO Guidance

The USPTO's recent guidance updates, particularly those related to AI and software patents, are crucial in determining the patent eligibility of the claimed invention.

Abstract Ideas and Practical Applications

• The 2024 USPTO guidance update emphasizes the need to integrate abstract ideas into practical applications. Claims that merely use mathematical models or data processing steps without a practical application are likely to be rejected under section 101[2].
• For example, a claim that specifies the use of AI in a speech recognition system to enhance voice command accuracy is more likely to be patent-eligible than a claim that simply uses AI for data manipulation without a specific practical application[2].

Role of AI in Invention Development

• The guidance also clarifies that the method of invention development, including the use of AI, does not impact subject matter eligibility. The focus remains on the claimed invention itself, ensuring that AI-assisted inventions are evaluated equally with other technologies[2].

Mitigating Infringement Risks

Identifying potential infringement risks is a critical aspect of patent management.

Examiner Rejection Analysis

• Tools like PatentAdvisor’s Examiner Rejection Analysis can help identify other companies seeking patents that may rely on similar technology, thereby uncovering potential licensing opportunities and infringement risks[1].
• This analysis leverages decades of data on examiner citations to pinpoint competitors and potential infringers, enabling proactive strategies to mitigate risks.

Enhancing Patent Monetization Strategies

Patent monetization is a key objective for many patent holders.

Leveraging Prosecution Analytics

• Patent prosecution analytics can significantly enhance patent monetization strategies. By analyzing examiner rejection data, patent professionals can identify licensing opportunities, mitigate infringement risks, and uncover new technology spaces to enter[1].
• These analytics also help in quantifying patent prosecution performance, which can be a valuable tool for law firms to win new business and build stronger attorney-client relationships[1].

Real-World Applications and Benefits

Demonstrating the real-world applications and benefits of the claimed invention is vital for both patent eligibility and market viability.

Practical Utility and Problem-Solving

• Claims that specify how the invention solves specific problems or provides concrete benefits in the relevant field are more likely to be patent-eligible. For instance, a claim that enhances speech recognition accuracy in hands-free environments provides a tangible outcome that directly benefits the technology[2].

Key Takeaways

• Claims Analysis: Carefully examine the claims for specificity, breadth, and integration of abstract ideas into practical applications.
• Prior Art and Anticipation: Use USPTO resources to identify prior art and ensure the claimed invention is novel and non-obvious.
• Patent Eligibility: Ensure the claims meet the USPTO's guidance on integrating abstract ideas into practical applications, especially for AI-related inventions.
• Infringement Risks: Utilize tools like Examiner Rejection Analysis to identify potential infringement risks and licensing opportunities.
• Monetization Strategies: Leverage patent prosecution analytics to enhance monetization strategies and build stronger attorney-client relationships.

FAQs

Q1: How do I determine if a patent claim is anticipated by prior art? A1: To determine if a claim is anticipated, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Use resources like the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool to identify relevant prior art[3].

Q2: What is the significance of integrating abstract ideas into practical applications in patent claims? A2: Integrating abstract ideas into practical applications is crucial for overcoming section 101 rejections. Claims must specify how the abstract idea is applied in a way that provides concrete benefits or solves specific problems in the relevant field[2].

Q3: How can patent prosecution analytics enhance patent monetization strategies? A3: Patent prosecution analytics can help identify licensing opportunities, mitigate infringement risks, and uncover new technology spaces to enter. These analytics also aid in quantifying patent prosecution performance, which can help law firms win new business[1].

Q4: What role does AI play in the patent eligibility of inventions? A4: The method of invention development, including the use of AI, does not impact subject matter eligibility. The focus remains on the claimed invention itself, ensuring AI-assisted inventions are evaluated equally with other technologies[2].

Q5: How can I use USPTO resources to search for prior art and assess patent eligibility? A5: Use tools like the Patent Public Search, Global Dossier, and Common Citation Document (CCD) to identify relevant prior art and assess whether the claimed invention is novel and non-obvious[4].

Sources

1. LexisNexis IP, "Patent licensing with Examiner Rejection Analysis - LexisNexis IP"
2. Mintz, "Understanding the 2024 USPTO Guidance Update on AI Patent"
3. USPTO, "2131-Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 - USPTO"
4. USPTO, "Search for patents - USPTO"

Details for Patent 10,011,820

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Smith & Nephew, Inc.	SANTYL	collagenase	Ointment	101995	June 04, 1965	10,011,820	2031-09-30