PATENTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Anyway this appears to be it:
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2019014698A1/en?oq=20179...
[0038] In preparing the xenograft for use, the tendon is surgically
dissected and removed from the paratenon (tendon sheath). The tendon is
composed mostly of an extra-cellular collagen matrix, which is non-
immunogenic. The tendon may therefore require no denaturing
(decellularisation) prior to implantation into a mammal. In some
embodiments, the tendon may be subjected to a decellularisation process
prior to implantation. In removing the cells from the tendon, the
immunogenic antibodies within the cells are also removed, thus rendering the
tendon non- immunogenic. Methods of decellularisation of tendon tissue are
known in the art. Such methods include physical, chemical and enzymatic
treatments, wherein the cells within the tendon are lysed, leaving an
undamaged extracellular matrix having the same physical and biochemical
properties as the natural tissue.I wonder what has changed.
Surely it's evident that most nations would find an imperative in keeping that knowledge guarded?
The govt doesn't have to patent these techniques at all. They do so for the benefit of public enterprises (so contractors and military industry can benefit) and so that the knowledge does eventually enter the public commercial sphere. That article itself mentions multiple patents that eventually had the veil lifted and/or expired.
They can "eventually" release the information whether or not they had a secret patent.
and since the contractors are taking federal money, the gub'mnt reserves the rights to any of their findings; agree or don't get the contract.
but this then gives the Gov another angle if the contractor deliberately or accidently releases or sells those secrets -- not just distributing classified materials, but also patent violations, and potential lawsuits. it's a tool to ensure compliance if/when the government is funding stuff they don't want released
There are plenty of technologies the US govt researched and implemented that they did not patent and instead released directly to the public domain. Many of those related to Arpanet and baseband cellular technologies are key examples. So your point is moot. They do both, it's discretionary to their strategic interests, in much the same way commercial entities will sometimes patent their research but make it freely licenseable.
The standard was (and AFAIK, still is) that the technique or technology must be revealed in sufficient detail that it can be reproduced "by a skilled practitioner in the field without undue experimentation".
Of course, that was at a time when technological progress was much slower, and less transnational.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36785816
In layman's terms, they're using achilles or tail tendon from certain kangaroo species that have been carefully dissected to retain only non-immune-reactive tissue (or decellularized), and sticking it in people's knees and other ligament sites in the body because it's strong.
It essentially covers the usage of macropod (kangaroo, specifically, of an enumerated variety) tendon and ligaments in a grafting procedure using "undisclosed" materials for compatibility. It then enumerates specific elasticity parameters before giving a description of the problem (background).
Basically, exactly what the topic article summarizes into layman.
Quote: “The tendon is composed mostly of an extra-cellular collagen matrix, which is non-immunogenic. The tendon may therefore require no denaturing (decellularisation) prior to implantation into a mammal. In some embodiments, the tendon may be subjected to a decellularisation process prior to implantation. In removing the cells from the tendon, the immunogenic antibodies within the cells are also removed, thus rendering the tendon non- immunogenic. Methods of decellularisation of tendon tissue are known in the art. Such methods include…”
> You've heard of the golden rule, haven't you? Whoever has the gold makes the rules.