Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Voda]

I have this nutraceutical formula that I'm trying to perfect. I would like to patent it, but the problem is that one of the ingredients can be replaced by several other options.

I was just going to patent X, Y, and Z. But Z can be replaced by options A, B or C (or a combination of these).

Is it possible to patent all the options and combinations in one application?

[MYK]

Sure.  Just write more claims.

[BobRoberts]

Not into the chemical arts, so take this for what it's worth...  And, please remember, that (as you may know), claim language must often be stated in a particular way.  Wording the claim language wrong, even by misusing a single word in some cases, could convert what could be broad claim scope down to an almost worthless very narrow claim scope. 

Can you determine a single word that describes properties of ABC.  An analogy in the mechanical arts may be 2 items in a claim that are fastened to one another.  The inventor may have envisioned the items to be connected with a screw, however, a rivet, nail,  or duct tape would work as well (ok., maybe not duct tape).   

If you limit your claim to just using a screw, anyone that practices your invention except using a rivet would not literally infringe the claim.   You might be able to get infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, but there are hurdles to cross there, and depending with how Prosecution is handled, it may be difficult or not possible.

So, in this analogy, you'd claim A and B 'coupled' by a 'fastener' rather than a screw.  If the screw provided a pivot point, or moveable joint, claim the fastener allowing B to be pivotable about A (or moveable with respect to A).  Sloppy language here, but I hope that you see my point.  Then, in your detailed description of the invention, when you discuss what a fastener is, give every alternative possible as being a fastener...

Good luck.

[Voda]

Awesome. Thanks

[Voda]

One more question... Would I have to state in the claims, the dosage of each option and combination?

I'm wondering, because the extra research would take a lot more time and money.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

One more question... Would I have to state in the claims, the dosage of each option and combination?

I'm wondering, because the extra research would take a lot more time and money.

The OP wants to own particular combinations but doesn't actually know what they are with any specificity, and doesn't want to spend the money to research them and find out what they are?

This seem like a bit of a problem (possibly enablement for the broad claims) to anyone?  Thoughts?

[BobRoberts]

"The OP wants to own particular combinations but doesn't actually know what they are with any specificity, and doesn't want to spend the money to research them and find out what they are?

This seem like a bit of a problem (possibly enablement for the broad claims) to anyone?  Thoughts?"

Yep Dogday, I agree with you...

- Voda, I would strongly recommend getting qualified Patent Counsel.  I understand that paying a patent attorney to draft your patent application may be expensive, however, you should be aware that there are various requirements for any Us Patent application, including enablement and best mode.  If the requirements of a patent application are not met, then your application (and any patent that issues therefrom) will not be worth the price of the paper it's printed on. 

If you are drafting Claims, but don't know the particular mixtures that should/could be used, then you have most likely not enabled your invention so that one skilled in the art could practice it...  And, if you improperly word the claims or particular parts of the detailed description, you will, at best, extremely limit any patent rights that may issue from the applicaiton.  I get people in my office often that have tried to prosecute their own application.  They have almost always missed the major requirements of the patent application, and are responding to a final office action on formalities, and not the merits.  They usually have already paid $800 - $1000 on their application.  Sometimes there is enough in their application to salvage the subject matter, but most of the time there isn't.  It actually pains me to see the hurt look on their faces when I tell them that they likely have forfeited their invention, or if they are one of the lucky few, that it will thousands to redraft their patent application and pay all the late fees, effectively costing them $1000 - $1500 more than had they come to me in the first place.

It takes an Attorney fresh from Law School 1 - 3 years of ful time patent drafting to really learn the tade.  This is because patent drafting is quite complex.

Good luck...

[Voda]

I know the dosage of the original formula that I want to patent, I just wanted to know whether I need to include the dosages of every other option and combination in the claims.

[iamddn]

Pharmaceuticals are often claimed in the way you described:  X+ Y + at least one of (Z, A, B, or C).  The problem is that it typically opens you up to a mountain of prior art.  You will need to be prepared to justify the combination so that the Examiner will not reject you based on a reference with X, a second reference with Y, and third reference with one of Z, A, B, or C (typically some type of non-obvious benefit from the synergy of the three compounds). 

If you need to rely on particular dosages to overcome prior art references that disclose these compounds, then you need to be prepared to provide some type of non-obvious benefit from the specified amounts or you will be hit with obviousness rejection based on ordinary optimization.  These non-obvious benefits should be disclosed in the application to have any weight.

You may find it helpful to search through the PTO database to see how other similar inventions are claimed.

[Voda]

Ingredient X doesn't appear to be in any patent that describes a similar product. Does this mean prior art shouldn't be a worry?

[klaviernista]

I have this nutraceutical formula that I'm trying to perfect. I would like to patent it, but the problem is that one of the ingredients can be replaced by several other options.

I was just going to patent X, Y, and Z. But Z can be replaced by options A, B or C (or a combination of these).

Is it possible to patent all the options and combinations in one application?

In a past life, I spent a lot of time drafting and prosecuting applications drawn to small molecules and alloy compositions.  It is definitely possible to patent all the options and combinations in one application (at least in the U.S.), you just have to go about it the right way.  It will be more difficult in Europe, China, Japan, and certain other countries, for reasons I will explain later.

First and foremost, and as others have said, you need to be cognizant of the written description and enablement requirements imposed by U.S. patent law.  In a nutshell, you need to make sure that the specification DESCRIBES the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use claimed invention without UNDUE experiementation.  In the chemical arts, particularly the small molecule area, a large amount of experimentation is expected.  Thus, it is not necessary to describe each and every combination of elements, or the precise way of making/combining each set of elements.  The specification neeed only provide enough information so that a POOSA could obtain all the combinations without having to spend an exorbitant amount of time money, or effort doing so.  Note that if there is some specific method or process required to make the compounds, you  will want to consider disclosing that in the specification, as that will go to the amount of experimentation a POOSA will have to engage in order to  arrive at all combinations claimed.  It may also go to best mode (particularly if you are claiming a method).

On to claims.  It is actually fairly easy to craft claims that cover all the combinations of X+Y and Z.  e.g., "Claim 1.  A composition comprising at least one of X and Y and Z.  Claim 2.  The composition of claim 1, wherein Z is chosen from A, B, and C.  Claim 3.  The composition of claim 1, comprising at least two of X, Y, and Z.  Claim 4.  The composition of claim 3, wherein Z is chosen from . . . "  you get the picture. 

One way to try and meet the enablement and written description requirements for such claims is to ensure that your specification DESCRIBES all the combinations using the same or similar language as the claims.  The specification should also provide non-limiting examples of each of elements X, Y, Z, A, B, and C.   Finally, the specification should include myriad examples of specific combinations of elements, including the combinations which are likely condidates for commercialization.  The inclusion of multiple specific examples is particularly important if you want to file for patent protection abroad, particularly in Europe and China.  Many foreign countries (China and Europe in particular) impose a much more stringent written description requirement than U.S. law.  As a result, it is usually only possible to obtain protection for the combinations specifically enumerated in the specification in such countries.

So, spend some time thinking about all the possible formulatons that you think might work.  You should also consider producing those formulations in the lab.  finally, consider including as many combinations as possible (hyothetical or actually produced) in the application (be sure to denote when an example is hypothetical, vs. an actually produced sample).

Finally, as others have said, an attorney specializing in the prosecution of applications in the chemical or materials science arts will be able to provide a wealth of guidanbce on this topic. 

Good luck.

Klav

[klaviernista]

Ingredient X doesn't appear to be in any patent that describes a similar product. Does this mean prior art shouldn't be a worry?

Maybe.  It would depend on the facts.  E.g., say that Y and Z are described in a single reference (reference 1) for use in combination to form a nutraceutical composition.  In another document (reference 2), X is described as enhancing some property or feature of Y and Z, but that enhancement is not described in the second document as being useful for neutraceutical formulations.  A third document (reference 3) says that the property or feature enhanced by X is particularly useful in neutraceuticals for some articulated reason, but does not specifically describe the use of X, Y or Z.  Likely, and Examiner would reject a claim to a neutraceutical formulation comprising X, Y and Z in view of those references under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), based on an argument that the combination was obvious.  The rationale underlying the rejection would likely be that the second and third references demonstrate the combination of X with Y or Z (reference 2), and the benefit of doing so (reference 3).  The burden would then shift to the applicant to rebut that argument, e.g., through evidence demonstrating why the combination of X with Y and Z was viewed as undesirable in the art, particularly difficult, etc. 

The good news is that the relevant case law (particularly Takeda v. Alphapharm) weighs in your favor.  There is a series of post KSR cases (Takeda in particular), that hold that the chemical arts are intrinsically unpredictable.  Thus, playing on the unpredictable nature of the results of your claimed combination (if possible), can be particularly effective in overcoming an obviousness rejection.

[klaviernista]

Can you determine a single word that describes properties of ABC[?]

Not a bad strategy, but be careful when describing the properties or aspects of a chemical composition in the specification.  If you go on and on about how the compositions of the claimed invention "exhibit property blah blah," in the specification, you are inveiting a court to interpret otherwise broad language as only encompassing combinations that actually exhibit property "blah blah."  I can already see Jim Ivey's forehead furrowing, but you should describe the properties of your combinations in a non-limiting way, where possible.  E.g., "In some embodiments, the compositions described herein exhibit property blah blah" or "Compositions of the present disclosure may exhibit a variety of useful properties, including but not limited to blah blah." 

[Voda]

I'm definitely way over my head if I try writing the application myself. I will bring up these issues when I work with my patent attorney. Thanks very much everyone for your help