Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (1)
How does a provisional application affect public disclosure of an invention?
Filing a provisional application does not automatically result in public disclosure of your invention. The MPEP 201.04 states: ‘A provisional application will not be published, and, therefore, no publication fee is required.’
This means that your invention remains confidential when you file a provisional application. However, it’s crucial to understand that:
- The confidentiality only applies to the USPTO’s handling of your application.
- If you publicly disclose your invention yourself, it could affect your ability to obtain patents in some countries.
- The 12-month grace period for filing a nonprovisional application starts from the provisional filing date, not from any public disclosure you might make.
Always consult with a patent attorney before making any public disclosures about your invention, even after filing a provisional application.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on public disclosure, visit: public disclosure.
MPEP 201 – Types of Applications (1)
How does a provisional application affect public disclosure of an invention?
Filing a provisional application does not automatically result in public disclosure of your invention. The MPEP 201.04 states: ‘A provisional application will not be published, and, therefore, no publication fee is required.’
This means that your invention remains confidential when you file a provisional application. However, it’s crucial to understand that:
- The confidentiality only applies to the USPTO’s handling of your application.
- If you publicly disclose your invention yourself, it could affect your ability to obtain patents in some countries.
- The 12-month grace period for filing a nonprovisional application starts from the provisional filing date, not from any public disclosure you might make.
Always consult with a patent attorney before making any public disclosures about your invention, even after filing a provisional application.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on public disclosure, visit: public disclosure.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (5)
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
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:
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), there are two main categories of prior art:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): This includes documents and activities such as issued patents, published applications, non-patent printed publications, public use, sale, or other public availability of the claimed invention.
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): This specifically covers U.S. patent documents.
The MPEP states: “The categories of prior art documents and activities are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the categories of prior art patent documents are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).” This means that these categories are used to determine the novelty and non-obviousness of a claimed invention.
To learn more:
While both exceptions relate to prior public disclosures by inventors, there are key differences:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) applies to disclosures made within the grace period (1 year before the effective filing date).
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) has no grace period limitation and can apply to any U.S. patent document, regardless of its potential prior art date under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The MPEP states: “There is no grace period limitation to the applicability of the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception.” This means that an inventor’s public disclosure can potentially disqualify a later-filed U.S. patent document as prior art, even if that document was filed years after the inventor’s disclosure.
However, it’s important to note that if the inventor’s public disclosure is not within the grace period, it would still qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.02 – Rejections Based On Publications And Patents (1)
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2152 – Detailed Discussion Of Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(A) And (B) (1)
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), there are two main categories of prior art:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): This includes documents and activities such as issued patents, published applications, non-patent printed publications, public use, sale, or other public availability of the claimed invention.
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): This specifically covers U.S. patent documents.
The MPEP states: “The categories of prior art documents and activities are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the categories of prior art patent documents are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).” This means that these categories are used to determine the novelty and non-obviousness of a claimed invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2152.05 – Determining Whether To Apply 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) Or 102(A)(2) (1)
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:
MPEP 2154.02(B) – Prior Art Exception Under Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(B)(2)(B) To Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) (Inventor – Originated Prior Public Disclosure Exception) (1)
While both exceptions relate to prior public disclosures by inventors, there are key differences:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) applies to disclosures made within the grace period (1 year before the effective filing date).
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) has no grace period limitation and can apply to any U.S. patent document, regardless of its potential prior art date under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The MPEP states: “There is no grace period limitation to the applicability of the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception.” This means that an inventor’s public disclosure can potentially disqualify a later-filed U.S. patent document as prior art, even if that document was filed years after the inventor’s disclosure.
However, it’s important to note that if the inventor’s public disclosure is not within the grace period, it would still qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (1)
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
Patent Law (6)
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
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:
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), there are two main categories of prior art:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): This includes documents and activities such as issued patents, published applications, non-patent printed publications, public use, sale, or other public availability of the claimed invention.
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): This specifically covers U.S. patent documents.
The MPEP states: “The categories of prior art documents and activities are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the categories of prior art patent documents are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).” This means that these categories are used to determine the novelty and non-obviousness of a claimed invention.
To learn more:
How does a provisional application affect public disclosure of an invention?
Filing a provisional application does not automatically result in public disclosure of your invention. The MPEP 201.04 states: ‘A provisional application will not be published, and, therefore, no publication fee is required.’
This means that your invention remains confidential when you file a provisional application. However, it’s crucial to understand that:
- The confidentiality only applies to the USPTO’s handling of your application.
- If you publicly disclose your invention yourself, it could affect your ability to obtain patents in some countries.
- The 12-month grace period for filing a nonprovisional application starts from the provisional filing date, not from any public disclosure you might make.
Always consult with a patent attorney before making any public disclosures about your invention, even after filing a provisional application.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on public disclosure, visit: public disclosure.
While both exceptions relate to prior public disclosures by inventors, there are key differences:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) applies to disclosures made within the grace period (1 year before the effective filing date).
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) has no grace period limitation and can apply to any U.S. patent document, regardless of its potential prior art date under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The MPEP states: “There is no grace period limitation to the applicability of the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception.” This means that an inventor’s public disclosure can potentially disqualify a later-filed U.S. patent document as prior art, even if that document was filed years after the inventor’s disclosure.
However, it’s important to note that if the inventor’s public disclosure is not within the grace period, it would still qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (6)
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
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:
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), there are two main categories of prior art:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): This includes documents and activities such as issued patents, published applications, non-patent printed publications, public use, sale, or other public availability of the claimed invention.
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): This specifically covers U.S. patent documents.
The MPEP states: “The categories of prior art documents and activities are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the categories of prior art patent documents are set forth in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).” This means that these categories are used to determine the novelty and non-obviousness of a claimed invention.
To learn more:
How does a provisional application affect public disclosure of an invention?
Filing a provisional application does not automatically result in public disclosure of your invention. The MPEP 201.04 states: ‘A provisional application will not be published, and, therefore, no publication fee is required.’
This means that your invention remains confidential when you file a provisional application. However, it’s crucial to understand that:
- The confidentiality only applies to the USPTO’s handling of your application.
- If you publicly disclose your invention yourself, it could affect your ability to obtain patents in some countries.
- The 12-month grace period for filing a nonprovisional application starts from the provisional filing date, not from any public disclosure you might make.
Always consult with a patent attorney before making any public disclosures about your invention, even after filing a provisional application.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
For more information on public disclosure, visit: public disclosure.
While both exceptions relate to prior public disclosures by inventors, there are key differences:
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) applies to disclosures made within the grace period (1 year before the effective filing date).
- AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) has no grace period limitation and can apply to any U.S. patent document, regardless of its potential prior art date under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The MPEP states: “There is no grace period limitation to the applicability of the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception.” This means that an inventor’s public disclosure can potentially disqualify a later-filed U.S. patent document as prior art, even if that document was filed years after the inventor’s disclosure.
However, it’s important to note that if the inventor’s public disclosure is not within the grace period, it would still qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
To learn more: