Analysis of Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 5,935,591

Executive Summary

This comprehensive analysis examines the scope, claims, and patent landscape surrounding United States Patent 5,935,591. While specific details of this patent are not directly accessible in the provided search results, the investigation leverages analogous patent law principles, claim construction methodologies, and landscape analysis frameworks to infer its potential legal and technological implications. Key themes include the interplay between claim language and structural definiteness, utility requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and competitive positioning within its technology domain.

Historical and Legal Foundations of Patent Claims

Evolution of Claim Drafting Standards

Patent claims define the legal boundaries of an invention’s protection. Historically, claims have transitioned from broad, conceptual descriptions to precise, element-based formulations to satisfy modern definiteness requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112. For example, Abraham Lincoln’s 1849 patent for buoying vessels exemplifies early claim structures focused on functional outcomes rather than technical components[8]. Contemporary standards, however, demand granularity, as seen in recent Federal Circuit rulings that emphasize structural correlations between claimed properties and tangible embodiments[9].

The shift reflects heightened scrutiny over abstract ideas, particularly after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). Patents that fail to anchor claims to concrete physical or algorithmic structures risk invalidation under § 101. For instance, the Federal Circuit’s 2025 decision in In re Magnetic PDC clarified that claims defining materials by measurable properties (e.g., coercivity, permeability) must demonstrate a “sufficient correlation” to structural characteristics to avoid being deemed abstract[9].

Structural Analysis of Patent Claims

Claim Scope and Definiteness

A patent’s enforceability hinges on whether its claims provide “reasonable certainty” to skilled artisans. The Federal Circuit’s 2020 ruling in Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. reaffirmed that claims using terms like “paresthesia-free” are not indefinite merely because infringement requires post-hoc testing[13]. Similarly, USPTO guidelines mandate that claims with non-structural properties (e.g., magnetic saturation) must link these attributes to disclosed manufacturing processes or material compositions to satisfy § 112[12].

For Patent 5,935,591, assuming it involves a mechanical or chemical invention, its claims would need to avoid overbreadth while maintaining sufficient flexibility. Overly broad claims risk invalidation for encompassing prior art or abstract concepts, as seen in Yu v. Apple Inc. (2021), where generic functional language led to dismissal under § 101[14]. Conversely, excessively narrow claims limit commercial viability. The balance lies in anchoring claims to specific embodiments while incorporating Markush groups or functional limitations where justified by the specification[14].

Utility and Patent Eligibility

Navigating 35 U.S.C. § 101

The USPTO’s utility guidelines exclude “throw-away” or “insubstantial” applications, requiring inventions to demonstrate “specific and substantial” use[12]. For example, cloud-seeding methods using silver iodide were historically patentable due to their concrete agricultural applications, whereas speculative hurricane-modification techniques often face rejections absent empirical validation[4][12].

If Patent 5,935,591 pertains to a weather-control system, its claims would need to disclose operative mechanisms (e.g., jet engines altering atmospheric temperature) rather than aspirational outcomes[4]. The Federal Circuit’s emphasis on “probative relations” between disclosed properties and real-world efficacy would further necessitate experimental data or computational models substantiating the invention’s feasibility[9][12].

Patent Landscape and Competitive Dynamics

Freedom-to-Operate and Prior Art

A patent landscape analysis identifies competing innovations, white spaces, and infringement risks. Tools like the USPTO’s Patent Public Search and global databases (e.g., PATENTSCOPE®) enable granular keyword and classification-based queries[3][7]. For instance, a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search for a hypothetical hurricane-control patent would catalog prior art in atmospheric intervention, such as U.S. Patent 5,984,239 (satellite-based weather modification) and U.S. Application 20080035750 (explosive cyclone reduction)[4][11].

Key steps in landscape analysis include:

Technology Subdomain Mapping: Segmenting patents by functional components (e.g., temperature modulation, pressure systems).
Trend Identification: Tracking filing activity spikes, which may indicate emerging R&D priorities or market shifts[11].
Assignee Stratification: Ranking entities by portfolio size to pinpoint dominant players and potential licensors[11].

For Patent 5,935,591, competitors might include aerospace firms with patents on atmospheric engineering or energy companies investing in climate resilience technologies.

Legal Precedents and Claim Interpretation

Prosecution Strategies and Judicial Trends

Recent rulings underscore the importance of aligning claim language with the specification. In Poly-America and M.I.T., courts required “clear and unequivocal” disavowals of claim scope to limit interpretations[10]. Prosecutors drafting claims for Patent 5,935,591 would need to preempt disputes by explicitly defining terms like “ambient temperature modulation” and incorporating dependent claims to cover alternative embodiments[10][14].

Additionally, the Nevro decision illustrates that claims need not enable ex ante infringement determinations. Instead, definiteness focuses on whether the specification provides adequate guidance for implementation, even if testing is required post-facto[13].

Economic and Strategic Implications

Portfolio Optimization and Licensing

Patent landscapes inform licensing strategies by highlighting underutilized technologies or congested areas. For example, Dessign IP’s FTO analyses combine expired patents, non-patent literature, and jurisdiction-specific filings to identify low-risk commercialization pathways[5]. If Patent 5,935,591 covers a novel hurricane-diversion method, its owner could license it to governments or insurers, leveraging territorial filings in cyclone-prone regions[11].

However, broad claims may attract challenges. The Federal Circuit’s 2025 Magnetic PDC ruling demonstrates that patents risk invalidation if their claims lack structural specificity, even when supported by measurable properties[9]. Regular audits using tools like the Common Citation Document (CCD) can preempt such risks by ensuring ongoing alignment with evolving case law[3][9].

Conclusion

United States Patent 5,935,591, while not directly analyzable due to data limitations, exemplifies the intricate balance between claim breadth, structural definiteness, and utility. Modern prosecution demands rigorous adherence to § 101 and § 112 standards, with landscape analyses playing a pivotal role in strategic planning. As patent ecosystems grow increasingly complex, stakeholders must prioritize precision in claim drafting, continuous prior art monitoring, and adaptive licensing frameworks to safeguard innovation investments.

Key Takeaways

Claim Precision: Anchor functional language to disclosed embodiments to avoid § 101 rejections.
Utility Validation: Provide empirical data linking claimed properties to tangible applications.
Landscape Vigilance: Use tools like PATENTSCOPE® and USPTO Public Search to monitor competitors and prior art.
Prosecution Agility: Adapt claims to reflect judicial trends, particularly regarding structural correlations.

FAQs

1. What defines a patent claim’s scope?
A claim’s scope is determined by its literal language, supported by the specification and prosecution history. Courts assess whether terms provide “reasonable certainty” to skilled artisans[9][13].

2. How do utility requirements impact patent eligibility?
Inventions must demonstrate specific, substantial, and credible utility, excluding theoretical or speculative applications[12].

3. What tools are essential for patent landscape analysis?
Databases like Google Patents, USPTO Public Search, and PATENTSCOPE®, combined with analytics platforms (e.g., PatSnap), enable comprehensive prior art mapping[3][11].

4. Can claims be amended post-grant to address invalidity risks?
Yes, via reissue or ex parte reexamination, though amendments must not introduce new matter[14].

5. How does global patent filing affect landscape analysis?
Jurisdictional variations in claim interpretation and prior art necessitate multi-region searches to assess freedom-to-operate[3][11].

“The claimed [invention] is not an abstract result of generic functionality, but instead a physical composition defined by constituent elements and material properties.” — Federal Circuit, In re Magnetic PDC (2025)[9]

References

https://archive.org/stream/ohiostatemedical73unse/ohiostatemedical73unse_djvu.txt
https://curity.io/resources/learn/scopes-vs-claims/
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100072297A1/en
https://dessignip.com/patent-landscapeanalysis/
https://auth0.com/docs/get-started/apis/scopes/sample-use-cases-scopes-and-claims
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/patent-public-search
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/abraham-lincoln-inventor-1849
https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/federal-circuit-clarifies-%C2%A7-101-patent-eligibility-for-composition-of-matter-claims/
https://www.iptechblog.com/2016/10/the-federal-circuit-clarifies-when-claim-scope-is-disavowed/
https://ttconsultants.com/patents-as-your-gps-a-guide-to-patent-landscape-analysis/
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html
https://www.harnessip.com/blog/2020/04/09/a-patent-claim-is-not-indefinite-merely-because-infringement-cant-be-determined-in-advance/
https://www.rimonlaw.com/the-importance-of-getting-the-claim-scope-right-in-a-us-patent-application-i/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Patent-Claims-and-Patent-Scope-Marco-Sarnoff/811e1908785721f8f053316d5c56b3aae6f4185b

Title:	Method for treatment of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis with thiazolides
Abstract:	A method for treatment or prevention of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis, a condition for which there is presently no effective treatment. The method comprises administering to the infected horse an amount of one or more 2-benzamido-5-nitro-thiazole compounds sufficient to eradicate Sarcocystis spp.
Inventor(s):	Rossignol; Jean-Fran.cedilla.ois (Clearwater, FL), Ayers; Marc S. (Tampa, FL)
Assignee:	Romark Laboratories, L.C. (Tampa, FL)
Application Number:	09/007,653
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Compound; Process; Composition;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	Analysis of Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 5,935,591 Executive Summary This comprehensive analysis examines the scope, claims, and patent landscape surrounding United States Patent 5,935,591. While specific details of this patent are not directly accessible in the provided search results, the investigation leverages analogous patent law principles, claim construction methodologies, and landscape analysis frameworks to infer its potential legal and technological implications. Key themes include the interplay between claim language and structural definiteness, utility requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and competitive positioning within its technology domain. Historical and Legal Foundations of Patent Claims Evolution of Claim Drafting Standards Patent claims define the legal boundaries of an invention’s protection. Historically, claims have transitioned from broad, conceptual descriptions to precise, element-based formulations to satisfy modern definiteness requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112. For example, Abraham Lincoln’s 1849 patent for buoying vessels exemplifies early claim structures focused on functional outcomes rather than technical components[8]. Contemporary standards, however, demand granularity, as seen in recent Federal Circuit rulings that emphasize structural correlations between claimed properties and tangible embodiments[9]. The shift reflects heightened scrutiny over abstract ideas, particularly after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). Patents that fail to anchor claims to concrete physical or algorithmic structures risk invalidation under § 101. For instance, the Federal Circuit’s 2025 decision in In re Magnetic PDC clarified that claims defining materials by measurable properties (e.g., coercivity, permeability) must demonstrate a “sufficient correlation” to structural characteristics to avoid being deemed abstract[9]. Structural Analysis of Patent Claims Claim Scope and Definiteness A patent’s enforceability hinges on whether its claims provide “reasonable certainty” to skilled artisans. The Federal Circuit’s 2020 ruling in Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. reaffirmed that claims using terms like “paresthesia-free” are not indefinite merely because infringement requires post-hoc testing[13]. Similarly, USPTO guidelines mandate that claims with non-structural properties (e.g., magnetic saturation) must link these attributes to disclosed manufacturing processes or material compositions to satisfy § 112[12]. For Patent 5,935,591, assuming it involves a mechanical or chemical invention, its claims would need to avoid overbreadth while maintaining sufficient flexibility. Overly broad claims risk invalidation for encompassing prior art or abstract concepts, as seen in Yu v. Apple Inc. (2021), where generic functional language led to dismissal under § 101[14]. Conversely, excessively narrow claims limit commercial viability. The balance lies in anchoring claims to specific embodiments while incorporating Markush groups or functional limitations where justified by the specification[14]. Utility and Patent Eligibility Navigating 35 U.S.C. § 101 The USPTO’s utility guidelines exclude “throw-away” or “insubstantial” applications, requiring inventions to demonstrate “specific and substantial” use[12]. For example, cloud-seeding methods using silver iodide were historically patentable due to their concrete agricultural applications, whereas speculative hurricane-modification techniques often face rejections absent empirical validation[4][12]. If Patent 5,935,591 pertains to a weather-control system, its claims would need to disclose operative mechanisms (e.g., jet engines altering atmospheric temperature) rather than aspirational outcomes[4]. The Federal Circuit’s emphasis on “probative relations” between disclosed properties and real-world efficacy would further necessitate experimental data or computational models substantiating the invention’s feasibility[9][12]. Patent Landscape and Competitive Dynamics Freedom-to-Operate and Prior Art A patent landscape analysis identifies competing innovations, white spaces, and infringement risks. Tools like the USPTO’s Patent Public Search and global databases (e.g., PATENTSCOPE®) enable granular keyword and classification-based queries[3][7]. For instance, a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search for a hypothetical hurricane-control patent would catalog prior art in atmospheric intervention, such as U.S. Patent 5,984,239 (satellite-based weather modification) and U.S. Application 20080035750 (explosive cyclone reduction)[4][11]. Key steps in landscape analysis include: Technology Subdomain Mapping: Segmenting patents by functional components (e.g., temperature modulation, pressure systems). Trend Identification: Tracking filing activity spikes, which may indicate emerging R&D priorities or market shifts[11]. Assignee Stratification: Ranking entities by portfolio size to pinpoint dominant players and potential licensors[11]. For Patent 5,935,591, competitors might include aerospace firms with patents on atmospheric engineering or energy companies investing in climate resilience technologies. Legal Precedents and Claim Interpretation Prosecution Strategies and Judicial Trends Recent rulings underscore the importance of aligning claim language with the specification. In Poly-America and M.I.T., courts required “clear and unequivocal” disavowals of claim scope to limit interpretations[10]. Prosecutors drafting claims for Patent 5,935,591 would need to preempt disputes by explicitly defining terms like “ambient temperature modulation” and incorporating dependent claims to cover alternative embodiments[10][14]. Additionally, the Nevro decision illustrates that claims need not enable ex ante infringement determinations. Instead, definiteness focuses on whether the specification provides adequate guidance for implementation, even if testing is required post-facto[13]. Economic and Strategic Implications Portfolio Optimization and Licensing Patent landscapes inform licensing strategies by highlighting underutilized technologies or congested areas. For example, Dessign IP’s FTO analyses combine expired patents, non-patent literature, and jurisdiction-specific filings to identify low-risk commercialization pathways[5]. If Patent 5,935,591 covers a novel hurricane-diversion method, its owner could license it to governments or insurers, leveraging territorial filings in cyclone-prone regions[11]. However, broad claims may attract challenges. The Federal Circuit’s 2025 Magnetic PDC ruling demonstrates that patents risk invalidation if their claims lack structural specificity, even when supported by measurable properties[9]. Regular audits using tools like the Common Citation Document (CCD) can preempt such risks by ensuring ongoing alignment with evolving case law[3][9]. Conclusion United States Patent 5,935,591, while not directly analyzable due to data limitations, exemplifies the intricate balance between claim breadth, structural definiteness, and utility. Modern prosecution demands rigorous adherence to § 101 and § 112 standards, with landscape analyses playing a pivotal role in strategic planning. As patent ecosystems grow increasingly complex, stakeholders must prioritize precision in claim drafting, continuous prior art monitoring, and adaptive licensing frameworks to safeguard innovation investments. Key Takeaways Claim Precision: Anchor functional language to disclosed embodiments to avoid § 101 rejections. Utility Validation: Provide empirical data linking claimed properties to tangible applications. Landscape Vigilance: Use tools like PATENTSCOPE® and USPTO Public Search to monitor competitors and prior art. Prosecution Agility: Adapt claims to reflect judicial trends, particularly regarding structural correlations. FAQs 1. What defines a patent claim’s scope? A claim’s scope is determined by its literal language, supported by the specification and prosecution history. Courts assess whether terms provide “reasonable certainty” to skilled artisans[9][13]. 2. How do utility requirements impact patent eligibility? Inventions must demonstrate specific, substantial, and credible utility, excluding theoretical or speculative applications[12]. 3. What tools are essential for patent landscape analysis? Databases like Google Patents, USPTO Public Search, and PATENTSCOPE®, combined with analytics platforms (e.g., PatSnap), enable comprehensive prior art mapping[3][11]. 4. Can claims be amended post-grant to address invalidity risks? Yes, via reissue or ex parte reexamination, though amendments must not introduce new matter[14]. 5. How does global patent filing affect landscape analysis? Jurisdictional variations in claim interpretation and prior art necessitate multi-region searches to assess freedom-to-operate[3][11]. “The claimed [invention] is not an abstract result of generic functionality, but instead a physical composition defined by constituent elements and material properties.” — Federal Circuit, In re Magnetic PDC (2025)[9] References https://archive.org/stream/ohiostatemedical73unse/ohiostatemedical73unse_djvu.txt https://curity.io/resources/learn/scopes-vs-claims/ https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100072297A1/en https://dessignip.com/patent-landscapeanalysis/ https://auth0.com/docs/get-started/apis/scopes/sample-use-cases-scopes-and-claims https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/patent-public-search https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/abraham-lincoln-inventor-1849 https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/federal-circuit-clarifies-%C2%A7-101-patent-eligibility-for-composition-of-matter-claims/ https://www.iptechblog.com/2016/10/the-federal-circuit-clarifies-when-claim-scope-is-disavowed/ https://ttconsultants.com/patents-as-your-gps-a-guide-to-patent-landscape-analysis/ https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html https://www.harnessip.com/blog/2020/04/09/a-patent-claim-is-not-indefinite-merely-because-infringement-cant-be-determined-in-advance/ https://www.rimonlaw.com/the-importance-of-getting-the-claim-scope-right-in-a-us-patent-application-i/ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Patent-Claims-and-Patent-Scope-Marco-Sarnoff/811e1908785721f8f053316d5c56b3aae6f4185b More… ↓ ⤷ Try for Free

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate

No data available in table
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Generic Name	>Dosage	>NDA	>Approval Date	>TE	>Type	>RLD	>RS	>Patent No.	>Patent Expiration	>Product	>Substance	>Delist Req.	>Patented / Exclusive Use	>Submissiondate

Details for Patent: 5,935,591

Summary for Patent: 5,935,591