Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (4)
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) applies to certain patent documents as prior art. The MPEP states:
“U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the effectively filed date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Key points to understand:
- The reference’s effectively filed date must be before the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- The reference can be prior art even if its publication date is after the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines when subject matter in these documents was “effectively filed”
Exceptions to 102(a)(2) prior art are provided in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2), including disclosures of the inventor’s own work and common ownership scenarios.
To learn more:
The main difference between 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) lies in the types of prior art they cover:
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) covers public disclosures, including patents, printed publications, public use, sales, or other public availability of the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) specifically covers U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which have an effectively filed date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As stated in the MPEP, “First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) apply.” The same process is then applied for 102(a)(2) and its exceptions under 102(b)(2).
To learn more:
The “effectively filed” date is crucial for determining whether a reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP explains:
“Even if the issue or publication date of the reference is not before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the reference may still be applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if it was ‘effectively filed’ before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with respect to the subject matter relied upon to reject the claim.”
Key points about the “effectively filed” date:
- It’s determined by 35 U.S.C. 102(d) for U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and WIPO published applications
- It can be earlier than the actual filing date of the application
- It allows unpublished patent applications to potentially serve as prior art
- It’s crucial for determining the scope of prior art in the first-inventor-to-file system
Understanding the “effectively filed” date is essential for both patent examiners and applicants in assessing the relevance of potential prior art references.
To learn more:
MPEP 2152.05 – Determining Whether To Apply 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) Or 102(A)(2) (4)
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) applies to certain patent documents as prior art. The MPEP states:
“U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the effectively filed date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Key points to understand:
- The reference’s effectively filed date must be before the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- The reference can be prior art even if its publication date is after the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines when subject matter in these documents was “effectively filed”
Exceptions to 102(a)(2) prior art are provided in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2), including disclosures of the inventor’s own work and common ownership scenarios.
To learn more:
The main difference between 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) lies in the types of prior art they cover:
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) covers public disclosures, including patents, printed publications, public use, sales, or other public availability of the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) specifically covers U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which have an effectively filed date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As stated in the MPEP, “First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) apply.” The same process is then applied for 102(a)(2) and its exceptions under 102(b)(2).
To learn more:
The “effectively filed” date is crucial for determining whether a reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP explains:
“Even if the issue or publication date of the reference is not before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the reference may still be applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if it was ‘effectively filed’ before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with respect to the subject matter relied upon to reject the claim.”
Key points about the “effectively filed” date:
- It’s determined by 35 U.S.C. 102(d) for U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and WIPO published applications
- It can be earlier than the actual filing date of the application
- It allows unpublished patent applications to potentially serve as prior art
- It’s crucial for determining the scope of prior art in the first-inventor-to-file system
Understanding the “effectively filed” date is essential for both patent examiners and applicants in assessing the relevance of potential prior art references.
To learn more:
Patent Law (4)
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) applies to certain patent documents as prior art. The MPEP states:
“U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the effectively filed date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Key points to understand:
- The reference’s effectively filed date must be before the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- The reference can be prior art even if its publication date is after the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines when subject matter in these documents was “effectively filed”
Exceptions to 102(a)(2) prior art are provided in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2), including disclosures of the inventor’s own work and common ownership scenarios.
To learn more:
The main difference between 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) lies in the types of prior art they cover:
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) covers public disclosures, including patents, printed publications, public use, sales, or other public availability of the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) specifically covers U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which have an effectively filed date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As stated in the MPEP, “First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) apply.” The same process is then applied for 102(a)(2) and its exceptions under 102(b)(2).
To learn more:
The “effectively filed” date is crucial for determining whether a reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP explains:
“Even if the issue or publication date of the reference is not before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the reference may still be applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if it was ‘effectively filed’ before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with respect to the subject matter relied upon to reject the claim.”
Key points about the “effectively filed” date:
- It’s determined by 35 U.S.C. 102(d) for U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and WIPO published applications
- It can be earlier than the actual filing date of the application
- It allows unpublished patent applications to potentially serve as prior art
- It’s crucial for determining the scope of prior art in the first-inventor-to-file system
Understanding the “effectively filed” date is essential for both patent examiners and applicants in assessing the relevance of potential prior art references.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (4)
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) applies to certain patent documents as prior art. The MPEP states:
“U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the effectively filed date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Key points to understand:
- The reference’s effectively filed date must be before the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- The reference can be prior art even if its publication date is after the claimed invention’s effective filing date
- 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines when subject matter in these documents was “effectively filed”
Exceptions to 102(a)(2) prior art are provided in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2), including disclosures of the inventor’s own work and common ownership scenarios.
To learn more:
The main difference between 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) lies in the types of prior art they cover:
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) covers public disclosures, including patents, printed publications, public use, sales, or other public availability of the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) specifically covers U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which have an effectively filed date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As stated in the MPEP, “First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) apply.” The same process is then applied for 102(a)(2) and its exceptions under 102(b)(2).
To learn more:
The “effectively filed” date is crucial for determining whether a reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP explains:
“Even if the issue or publication date of the reference is not before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the reference may still be applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if it was ‘effectively filed’ before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with respect to the subject matter relied upon to reject the claim.”
Key points about the “effectively filed” date:
- It’s determined by 35 U.S.C. 102(d) for U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, and WIPO published applications
- It can be earlier than the actual filing date of the application
- It allows unpublished patent applications to potentially serve as prior art
- It’s crucial for determining the scope of prior art in the first-inventor-to-file system
Understanding the “effectively filed” date is essential for both patent examiners and applicants in assessing the relevance of potential prior art references.
To learn more: