|
Post by seanismorris on Aug 5, 2016 18:22:31 GMT -5
I'm looking for information on USPTO Patent Application 20160221967 MannKind Patent Date: 8/4/2016 Catalysis of diketopiperazine synthesis It it might be an update for www.google.com/patents/US8202992
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Aug 5, 2016 18:34:32 GMT -5
I'm looking for information on USPTO Patent Application 20160221967 MannKind Patent Date: 8/4/2016 Catalysis of diketopiperazine synthesis It it might be an update for www.google.com/patents/US8202992It appears they have developed a faster and more productive way to make technosphere - from the patent - The present invention provides methods for the synthesis of diketopiperazines using catalysts such that faster reaction times and higher yields are achieved compared to conventional step(s)/method(s)
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 5, 2016 18:47:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Aug 5, 2016 22:40:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 5, 2016 23:40:42 GMT -5
Not strange at all. The link I provided takes you to the Aug-2016 patent update. It's typical for additional claims to be added to the description. In this continuation, there are nineteen claims, six more than the thirteen claims in 2013 patent no. 8,748,609 that this continues. Nothing new here, but reading the full patent description serves as a reminder of how versatile Technosphere really is, including intravenous and oral (pills) in addition to the more commonly known pulmonary delivery. It truly is a remarkable invention.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 6, 2016 8:06:26 GMT -5
Patent reviews are like a tennis game. The inventor gets to serve the ball, the patent examiner hits it back, and the game is on. The inventor (or assignee company) asks for lots of claims with minimal disclosure while the patent examiner narrows the permitted claims and demands more disclosure. There is a lot of back and forth discussing the exact language and what will be shown in the application before something is agreed. Remember too that once the patent is published competitors can raise objections to certain items arguing, for example, that a particular claim is prior art, was obvious to someone skilled in the art, or interferes with another patent (all of which invalidate the claim). Eventually it all get sorted out, but it can take several years.
|
|