There are a few things to know about what can be patented in the United States. The first thing to know is what is considered “prior art.” According to the statute 35 U.S.C. 102, prior art is “anything disclosed or described by prior workers” before the invention was created. These can be printed publications, conference handouts, books, newspaper articles, and any language used. This can also include oral presentations.


  1. Criteria for a patent
    • Novelty
    • Utility of the invention
  2. Exclusions from patentability
  3. Processes that qualify for patent protection
  4. Regenerative medicine/stem cell patents controversy

Criteria for a patent


There are several requirements for obtaining a patent in the United States. One of these is novelty. This requirement is outlined in 35 U.S.C. SS 102 and ensures that an invention is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a blender with ten speeds may not be considered a novel improvement. A person of ordinary skill could come up with the same idea and simply add more speeds.

The next step in obtaining a patent is to ensure that the invention you have developed meets the criteria. The USPTO will evaluate the invention based on strict patentability, novelty, and non-obviousness requirements. It is imperative that the invention is both useful and novel in order to qualify. Besides being useful, the subject matter must also be non-obvious. There are two ways to define this, as process and machine. The latter may be a device, or a series of parts that work together.

Despite these requirements, many people still fail to meet them. Despite the high hurdles, the U.S. patent office is working to meet this requirement as quickly as possible. The first step to achieving this goal is to develop a thorough description of the invention. A comprehensive and detailed description of the invention is essential to ensure that it is a novel invention. Ultimately, it’s the written description that makes the difference.

utility of the invention

The second step is to establish the utility of the invention. A utility patent enables an inventor to sell a product that is useful in the real world. Moreover, the invention must be new and non-obvious. The USPTO will consider incremental steps toward a future invention if they meet the utility requirement. If the invention is not a new product, it may not be patented and therefore be worthless.

To receive a patent, an invention must be novel and non-obvious. Essentially, this means that an ordinary person who knows nothing about the subject matter of the patent application cannot figure out how it works. This applies to any invention, including machines, processes, articles of manufacture, and composition of matter. Non-patentable subject matter includes body movements, theories, and natural processes. Those with a patent on a new invention can expect to earn royalties of up to tens of millions of dollars.

Exclusions from patentability

The United States patent law outlines several exceptions to the right to patent an invention. Among these are medical treatments and surgical procedures, and mixed claims, which include non-inventions. It is important to understand the differences between these exemptions, and to decide which ones apply to you. The following are examples of exclusions and how they affect your ability to get a patent. To understand these exceptions and how they affect your ability to get a patent, let us take a look at some of the main ones.

The Patents Act generally considers any product or process suitable as subject matter for a patent. While the Act also leaves room for further unmentioned exclusions, they rarely arise in practice. Here is a list of all the main exclusions: What is not patentable?

The technical effect of a claim is defined by its scope. The technical effect must go beyond routine implementation of a known non-technical method. For example, an improved voice recognition system can speed up the transcription of dictated letters. However, if the invention is a technical improvement to a musical instrument, it may still qualify as an invention. These categories differ in how broadly the exemptions apply.

Besides the obviousness requirement, utility must be demonstrated to enable the invention to receive patent protection. Congress added this requirement to the patent test in 1952. Utility refers to the extent to which the claimed invention is useful. It must be sufficiently specific and credible for a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to accept it for the claimed use. The test also applies to new products based on FDA experimentation to approve the first.

Processes that qualify for patent protection

If you have a process that you feel qualifies for patent protection in the United States, you can get a patent for it. The process must be unique, not already in use by someone else, and it must meet certain requirements to qualify for patent protection. A licensed patent attorney is your first step in getting a patent for a process. If you don’t have any experience with this process, consider hiring an attorney. After all, patents only last 20 years!

The first step in acquiring a patent is to establish a clear definition of what your process is. Patent laws specify the requirements for what qualifies as “useful,” which traditionally refers to the operability, practical utility, or beneficial utility. However, in recent years, the question of beneficial use has not prevented applications. Benefits are generally considered purely functional and are not deceptive or immoral. Ultimately, the process must function as intended in the real world.

A process patent can be an important aspect of a new product or service. It allows the inventor to protect the work of others. Typically, patents protect an invention that involves a new process that changes the physical properties of a material. It also helps protect the intellectual property of the company that invented it. Patents serve as bragging rights for innovative companies. If you have a process that enables people to make money with it, you should consider patenting it.

In order to receive patent protection for a new invention, you must meet the requirements of the USPTO. Basically, you must make the process of making the object unique and useful. The USPTO will determine whether the process is an invention and grant the patent. Patent protection for the process does not cover the object itself. The object can only be patented if it was invented by a person with the necessary skill.

In the United States, a patent allows the public to implement an invention that has been patented. Once the patent term has expired, the public is free to make and use the product based on the specification provided in the patent. However, a patent is only valid in the United States and U.S. Territories, so if you want to file a patent in another country, you must research the intellectual property rights of that country and apply with its governing authority. There are two types of patents: utility patents and design patents. Each of these patents has its own specifications.

Regenerative medicine/stem cell patents controversy

The European Court of Justice recently banned the patenting of human embryonic stem cells, a ruling that is binding in all of the EU. Scientists are concerned that this decision will lead to the exclusion of stem cell therapies from Europe. This ruling is the culmination of a lengthy legal battle involving patents for embryonic cell lines, which are derived from fertilised human eggs. A German patent court referred the case to the European Court of Justice to determine the merits of the argument.

This case raises similar legal and ethical questions to the Brustle decision. While there is a strong commercial and medical case for patenting embryonic stem cell research, the basic principle remains the same: the right to life. Any technology that manipulates nature should be confined within strict rules. The European Court of Justice’s decision will ultimately determine whether stem cell technologies can be patented. If they are, the European Commission should reconsider its decision.

One of the biggest challenges facing stem cell patenting is obviousness. While all four regions have similar frameworks for determining obviousness, the U.S. adopts a more stringent standard. For instance, stem cells have complex properties and are highly advanced living organisms. Patentability may depend on how much human manipulation of the cells occurs in the laboratory and what the innovation is. If the invention can’t be demonstrated to solve an immediate problem, a stem cell patent may not be granted.

While Europe and China are generally more strict in regards to granting stem cell patents, Japan is more lenient than most countries. Patents granted for such methods may be deemed eligible for approval in Japan, as long as they do not endanger human embryos. As a result, Japan has become a popular choice for stem cell patents. Its patenting rules are also more expansive than in many other countries.