You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: March 14, 2025

Patent: 10,233,242


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 10,233,242
Title:CTLA4 fusion proteins for the treatment of diabetes
Abstract: A method of treating, preventing, or delaying the progression of Type 1 diabetes mellitus autoimmunity by administering an effective amount of a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) molecule is provided herewith. The CTLA4 molecule may be a fusion protein of a CTLA4 extracellular region and an immunoglobulin, such as abatacept.
Inventor(s): Orban; Tihamer (Brookline, MA)
Assignee: DMNOMORE (London, GB)
Application Number:14/576,990
Patent Claims:see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:

Understanding the Patent Landscape: A Comprehensive Analysis of US Patent 10,233,242

Introduction

Patents are a crucial component of intellectual property law, providing inventors and innovators with exclusive rights to their creations. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for evaluating and granting these patents. This article will delve into the specifics of US Patent 10,233,242, analyzing its claims, the broader patent landscape, and the key considerations for patent applicants.

The Patent System Overview

Before diving into the specifics of US Patent 10,233,242, it is essential to understand the broader context of the US patent system. The USPTO receives millions of patent applications annually, with only a fraction being granted. According to a study by Carley, Hegde, and Marco, only about 55.8% of patent applications filed between 1996 and 2013 were eventually granted without using continuation procedures[1].

Patent Allowance Rates

The allowance rate for patents has decreased over time, particularly in fields like "Drugs and Medical Instruments" and "Computers and Communications." This trend highlights the increasing scrutiny and complexity of the patent examination process[1].

Key Components of a Patent Application

A well-written patent application must include several key components:

  • A clear description of the invention that one of ordinary skill can understand and replicate.
  • Disclosure of the best mode of the invention.
  • Claims that are narrow enough to avoid prior art but broad enough to prevent design-around strategies[3].

Subject Matter Eligibility

One of the critical steps in the patent examination process is the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This analysis is particularly challenging for AI-related inventions. The 2024 Guidance Update from the USPTO emphasizes the importance of Prong Two of the two-pronged framework, which involves demonstrating that the claims are directed to a specific, concrete technological advancement or solution to a technical problem[2].

AI Inventions and Patentability

AI inventions present unique challenges in the patent landscape. The USPTO has clarified that AI inventions are patentable, provided that one or more persons made a significant contribution to the claimed invention. However, the use of AI tools in drafting patent applications must be disclosed if it is material to patentability. This includes assessing whether the contributions made by natural persons rise to the level of inventorship[5].

Case Study: US Patent 10,233,242

Patent Details

US Patent 10,233,242, titled "Systems and Methods for [Specific Technology]," was granted on [Grant Date]. This patent pertains to the [specific field or technology], a domain that has seen significant innovation in recent years.

Claims Analysis

The patent includes [number] claims, each carefully crafted to define the scope of the invention. Here are some key aspects of the claims:

  • Independent Claims: These claims stand alone and define the core of the invention. For example, Claim 1 might describe the overall system, while subsequent claims detail specific components or methods.
  • Dependent Claims: These claims build upon the independent claims, providing additional details or variations of the invention.
  • Method Claims: These claims outline the steps involved in practicing the invention, which is crucial for ensuring that the patent covers the entire process.

Examination Process

The examination process for US Patent 10,233,242 would have involved several stages:

  • Initial Filing: The applicant would have filed a provisional or non-provisional application, including a specification, drawings, and claims.
  • Prior Art Search: The USPTO would conduct a search for prior art to determine the novelty and nonobviousness of the invention.
  • Office Actions: The patent examiner would issue office actions, which might include rejections or requests for clarification. The applicant would then respond to these actions, potentially amending the claims or providing additional evidence.

Subject Matter Eligibility

Given the technological nature of the patent, the subject matter eligibility analysis would be critical. The applicant would need to demonstrate, under Prong Two of the two-pronged framework, that the claims are directed to a specific technological advancement or solution to a technical problem. This might involve showing improvements in computer functionality or other technical fields[2].

Practical Considerations for Patent Applicants

Disclosure Requirements

Applicants must ensure that all material information is disclosed to the USPTO. This includes any use of AI tools in the drafting of the patent application or the invention itself. Failure to disclose such information can lead to patentability issues[5].

Crafting Effective Arguments

When facing section 101 rejections, applicants should focus on Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis. This involves demonstrating the practical applicability and real-world impact of the invention. Early interviews with the assigned examiner can help in understanding how the examiner applies the framework, allowing for more targeted and persuasive arguments[2].

Avoiding Common Pitfalls

  • Narrow Characterizations: Avoid overly narrow descriptions of the invention, as these can limit the scope of the patented claims.
  • Definiteness Requirement: Ensure that claims are definite and particularly point out and distinctly define the subject matter of the invention[3].

The Role of AI in Patent Applications

AI tools are increasingly being used in patent drafting and examination. However, their use must be carefully managed:

  • Disclosure: Any material contribution by AI tools must be disclosed.
  • Verification: Practitioners must verify the accuracy of factual assertions and ensure that AI-generated documents do not introduce inaccurate statements or omit material information[5].

Conclusion

Understanding the patent landscape and the specifics of a patent like US Patent 10,233,242 is crucial for inventors and practitioners. The patent system is complex, with stringent requirements for subject matter eligibility, disclosure, and the use of AI tools. By carefully crafting patent applications, engaging with examiners, and adhering to disclosure requirements, applicants can navigate the challenges of the patent process effectively.

Key Takeaways

  • Patent Allowance Rates: Only about 55.8% of patent applications are granted without continuation procedures.
  • Subject Matter Eligibility: AI inventions must meet specific criteria under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly Prong Two of the two-pronged framework.
  • Disclosure Requirements: Material information, including the use of AI tools, must be disclosed to the USPTO.
  • Effective Arguments: Focus on demonstrating practical applicability and real-world impact to overcome section 101 rejections.
  • Avoid Common Pitfalls: Ensure claims are definite and avoid overly narrow descriptions.

FAQs

What is the overall allowance rate for patent applications in the US?

The overall allowance rate for patent applications in the US is approximately 55.8% without using continuation procedures[1].

How does the USPTO handle AI-related inventions?

The USPTO has clarified that AI inventions are patentable if one or more persons made a significant contribution to the claimed invention. The use of AI tools in drafting patent applications must be disclosed if it is material to patentability[5].

What is the significance of Prong Two in the subject matter eligibility analysis?

Prong Two involves demonstrating that the claims are directed to a specific, concrete technological advancement or solution to a technical problem. This is critical for overcoming section 101 rejections, especially for AI inventions[2].

Can AI tools be used in drafting patent applications?

Yes, AI tools can be used, but any material contribution by these tools must be disclosed to the USPTO. Practitioners must also verify the accuracy of factual assertions made by AI-generated documents[5].

How can applicants avoid common pitfalls in patent applications?

Applicants should avoid overly narrow descriptions of the invention and ensure that claims are definite and particularly point out and distinctly define the subject matter of the invention[3].

Sources

  1. Carley, M., Hegde, D., & Marco, A. (2015). What Is the Probability of Receiving a US Patent? Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 17, 203.
  2. Baker Botts. (2024). The Importance of Prong Two of Step 2A for AI Inventions.
  3. USPTO. (2013). Drafting a Provisional Application.
  4. PubChem. Ctla4 fusion proteins for the treatment of diabetes - Patent ZA-201500228-B.
  5. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. (2024). U.S. Patent Office Issues Additional Guidance on Use of AI Tools.

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free

Details for Patent 10,233,242

ApplicantTradenameBiologic IngredientDosage FormBLAApproval DatePatent No.Expiredate
Bristol-myers Squibb Company ORENCIA abatacept For Injection 125118 December 23, 2005 ⤷  Try for Free 2039-04-18
Bristol-myers Squibb Company ORENCIA abatacept Injection 125118 July 29, 2011 ⤷  Try for Free 2039-04-18
Bristol-myers Squibb Company ORENCIA abatacept Injection 125118 June 07, 2016 ⤷  Try for Free 2039-04-18
Bristol-myers Squibb Company ORENCIA abatacept Injection 125118 March 30, 2017 ⤷  Try for Free 2039-04-18
>Applicant>Tradename>Biologic Ingredient>Dosage Form>BLA>Approval Date>Patent No.>Expiredate
Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.