The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) to remove “hemp” from the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) definition of marijuana.
“Hemp” itself is defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
The newly issued Examination Guidance clarifies that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will refuse to register marks with goods that show a clear violation of federal law, regardless of the legality of those same goods under state law.
For applications filed on or after December 20, 2018, the Farm Bill removes the CSA as a ground for refusing registration if the associated goods are derived from “hemp” and the identification of goods specifies that they contain less than 0.3% THC.
For applications filed before December 20, 2018, the application may be amended to change the filing date to December 20, 2018, and to establish a valid filing basis. Specifically, if the original filing basis was use based, the application may be amended to change the filing basis to intent-to-use. Also, the original identification of the goods must be amended to specify that any identified CBD or cannabis products contain less than 0.3% THC.
Instead of amending the original application, the applicant may abandon the application or submit evidence and arguments against a pending refusal.
For applications that recite services involving the cultivation or production of cannabis that is “hemp,” the examining attorney will also issue inquiries concerning the applicant’s authorization to produce hemp.
In the case of In re Morinville, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court”) affirmed on appeal the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to reject all the claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/003,557 (“Application”).
As shown below, independent claim 1 of the Application recites a method of reorganizing a business hierarchy into a more centralized functional hierarchy.
- A method implemented in a computer for dynamically generating a hierarchal functional structure from a hierarchal operational structure, comprising the steps:
providing a hierarchal operational structure of unique positions within an organization;
associating one of a plurality of roles with each of the positions, wherein each of the roles has a corresponding major function, and wherein at least a subset of the roles is non-unique;
identifying a first one of the positions;
identifying positions in the hierarchal operational structure that are subordinate to the first one of the positions and that have roles which have at least one functional level in common with the role of the first one of the positions; and
generating a hierarchal functional structure of the identified positions; and
controlling user access to business processes based on the hierarchal functional structure;
wherein each of the steps is automatically implemented in the computer.
Under the first step of the Alice framework, the Court affirmed that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of creating a functional organizational structure from a hierarchal operational structure and controlling access to business processes based on the created functional structure.
Concerning the use of a computer to implement the rules that define the implementation of the abstract idea, the Court noted that computer-based efficiency does not save an otherwise abstract idea.
Moreover, concerning the defined rules themselves, the Court noted that rules implemented on a computer that were previously available to be implemented without the assistance of a computer also could not save an otherwise abstract idea.
Under the second step of the Alice framework, the Court affirmed that the recitation of the generic computer does not provide the requisite inventive concept and, as such, is insufficient to transform the method recited in claim 1 into a patent-eligible invention.
Concerning the inventive concept, the Court noted that such features must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
Comments: While software can be patent eligible in the U.S., the recited steps of the claimed software method must be defined with specificity and not as a black box.
In drafting these specific software steps, the recited functionality should not describe functions that can be reasonably performed by a human without the assistance of a computer.
Moreover, the claimed software steps should not describe only functionality that is regularly provided by an operating system implemented on the computer.