Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (10)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) refers specifically to the United States and its territories. According to the MPEP:
“The language ‘in this country’ in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.”
This definition is important for determining the applicability of the public use and on-sale bars in patent law.
To learn more:
Yes, in some circumstances, a secret or confidential use of an invention can constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP explains:
“[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.”
This means that even if an invention is used secretly, if it’s being commercially exploited, it may still be considered a public use. However, the mere fact that an invention is used internally by the inventor or their company to develop future products that are never sold is not sufficient by itself to create a public use bar.
It’s important to note that “public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non-secret.” The determination of whether a use is public depends on various factors, including the nature of the activity, public access, confidentiality obligations, and commercial exploitation.
To learn more:
While both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ are forms of prior art in patent law, they have distinct characteristics. According to MPEP 2152.02(d) and related sections:
- On Sale: Refers to commercial activities involving the invention, such as offers for sale or actual sales. It doesn’t necessarily require the invention to be publicly visible or used.
- Public Use: Involves the invention being used in a way that makes it accessible to the public, even if not commercially.
Key differences include:
- Commercial Intent: ‘On sale’ typically involves commercial transactions or offers, while ‘public use’ may not have a commercial aspect.
- Visibility: An invention can be ‘on sale’ without being visible to the public, whereas ‘public use’ generally implies some level of public accessibility.
- Purpose: ‘On sale’ focuses on commercial exploitation, while ‘public use’ is more about the invention being accessible or observable by the public.
Both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ can trigger statutory bars to patentability, so inventors should be cautious about any activities that might fall into either category before filing a patent application.
To learn more:
Courts consider several factors to determine if a claimed invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4), these factors include:
“(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, … (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] … (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.”
It’s important to note that no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily determinative. The examiner must assess the scope and length of the activity in relation to the experimental purpose and the nature of the subject matter involved.
To learn more:
The intent of the inventor is not sufficient alone to determine whether a public use or on-sale bar applies. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(2):
“When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective evidence to support the contention.”
This means that objective evidence is crucial in determining whether a use or sale was experimental, rather than commercial. The inventor’s secret intent is not enough to overcome a statutory bar.
To learn more:
Generally, an inventor’s private use of an invention for their own enjoyment does not constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP provides guidance on this matter:
“An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her own enjoyment is not a public use.”
This principle is illustrated in the case of Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., where the court held that an inventor showing his inventive puzzle to close friends in his dorm room and later discussing it with his company president did not result in a “public use.” The key factor was that the inventor retained control over the invention.
However, it’s important to note that if the private use involves commercial exploitation or if the invention becomes accessible to the public without restrictions, it may still be considered a public use. The determination often depends on the specific circumstances and the level of control the inventor maintains over the invention.
To learn more:
No, public knowledge is not necessarily the same as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
“Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge.”
However, it’s important to note that while public knowledge may not constitute public use under 102(b), it could potentially provide grounds for rejection under other sections of the patent law, such as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
An invention is considered “ready for patenting” in the context of public use when it has been reduced to practice or when the inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention. This concept is crucial in determining whether a public use or sale has occurred before the critical date. According to MPEP 2133.03(c):
“The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may apply even though the invention is not ready for use in a commercially marketable form.”
The MPEP further clarifies that an invention can be “ready for patenting” when:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
It’s important for inventors to be aware that even if an invention is not fully perfected, it may still be considered “ready for patenting” if it meets these criteria.
To learn more:
The level of supervision during experimental use can significantly impact whether an activity is considered public use under patent law. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(5):
“The degree of supervision and control over the invention required of the inventor to establish experimental use is generally high.”
This means that inventors must maintain substantial control over their invention during testing to ensure it qualifies as experimental use rather than public use. Lack of proper supervision may lead to the activity being classified as public use, potentially affecting patent rights.
To learn more:
MPEP 2132 – Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(A) (1)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(A) – "Public Use" (4)
Yes, in some circumstances, a secret or confidential use of an invention can constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP explains:
“[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.”
This means that even if an invention is used secretly, if it’s being commercially exploited, it may still be considered a public use. However, the mere fact that an invention is used internally by the inventor or their company to develop future products that are never sold is not sufficient by itself to create a public use bar.
It’s important to note that “public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non-secret.” The determination of whether a use is public depends on various factors, including the nature of the activity, public access, confidentiality obligations, and commercial exploitation.
To learn more:
Generally, an inventor’s private use of an invention for their own enjoyment does not constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP provides guidance on this matter:
“An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her own enjoyment is not a public use.”
This principle is illustrated in the case of Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., where the court held that an inventor showing his inventive puzzle to close friends in his dorm room and later discussing it with his company president did not result in a “public use.” The key factor was that the inventor retained control over the invention.
However, it’s important to note that if the private use involves commercial exploitation or if the invention becomes accessible to the public without restrictions, it may still be considered a public use. The determination often depends on the specific circumstances and the level of control the inventor maintains over the invention.
To learn more:
No, public knowledge is not necessarily the same as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
“Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge.”
However, it’s important to note that while public knowledge may not constitute public use under 102(b), it could potentially provide grounds for rejection under other sections of the patent law, such as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
An invention is considered “ready for patenting” in the context of public use when it has been reduced to practice or when the inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention. This concept is crucial in determining whether a public use or sale has occurred before the critical date. According to MPEP 2133.03(c):
“The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may apply even though the invention is not ready for use in a commercially marketable form.”
The MPEP further clarifies that an invention can be “ready for patenting” when:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
It’s important for inventors to be aware that even if an invention is not fully perfected, it may still be considered “ready for patenting” if it meets these criteria.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(D) – "In This Country" (1)
The phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) refers specifically to the United States and its territories. According to the MPEP:
“The language ‘in this country’ in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.”
This definition is important for determining the applicability of the public use and on-sale bars in patent law.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(E)(2) – Intent (1)
The intent of the inventor is not sufficient alone to determine whether a public use or on-sale bar applies. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(2):
“When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective evidence to support the contention.”
This means that objective evidence is crucial in determining whether a use or sale was experimental, rather than commercial. The inventor’s secret intent is not enough to overcome a statutory bar.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(E)(4) – Factors Indicative Of An Experimental Purpose (1)
Courts consider several factors to determine if a claimed invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4), these factors include:
“(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, … (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] … (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.”
It’s important to note that no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily determinative. The examiner must assess the scope and length of the activity in relation to the experimental purpose and the nature of the subject matter involved.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(E)(5) – Experimentation And Degree Of Supervision And Control (1)
The level of supervision during experimental use can significantly impact whether an activity is considered public use under patent law. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(5):
“The degree of supervision and control over the invention required of the inventor to establish experimental use is generally high.”
This means that inventors must maintain substantial control over their invention during testing to ensure it qualifies as experimental use rather than public use. Lack of proper supervision may lead to the activity being classified as public use, potentially affecting patent rights.
To learn more:
MPEP 2152.02(D) – On Sale (1)
While both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ are forms of prior art in patent law, they have distinct characteristics. According to MPEP 2152.02(d) and related sections:
- On Sale: Refers to commercial activities involving the invention, such as offers for sale or actual sales. It doesn’t necessarily require the invention to be publicly visible or used.
- Public Use: Involves the invention being used in a way that makes it accessible to the public, even if not commercially.
Key differences include:
- Commercial Intent: ‘On sale’ typically involves commercial transactions or offers, while ‘public use’ may not have a commercial aspect.
- Visibility: An invention can be ‘on sale’ without being visible to the public, whereas ‘public use’ generally implies some level of public accessibility.
- Purpose: ‘On sale’ focuses on commercial exploitation, while ‘public use’ is more about the invention being accessible or observable by the public.
Both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ can trigger statutory bars to patentability, so inventors should be cautious about any activities that might fall into either category before filing a patent application.
To learn more:
Patent Law (10)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) refers specifically to the United States and its territories. According to the MPEP:
“The language ‘in this country’ in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.”
This definition is important for determining the applicability of the public use and on-sale bars in patent law.
To learn more:
Yes, in some circumstances, a secret or confidential use of an invention can constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP explains:
“[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.”
This means that even if an invention is used secretly, if it’s being commercially exploited, it may still be considered a public use. However, the mere fact that an invention is used internally by the inventor or their company to develop future products that are never sold is not sufficient by itself to create a public use bar.
It’s important to note that “public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non-secret.” The determination of whether a use is public depends on various factors, including the nature of the activity, public access, confidentiality obligations, and commercial exploitation.
To learn more:
While both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ are forms of prior art in patent law, they have distinct characteristics. According to MPEP 2152.02(d) and related sections:
- On Sale: Refers to commercial activities involving the invention, such as offers for sale or actual sales. It doesn’t necessarily require the invention to be publicly visible or used.
- Public Use: Involves the invention being used in a way that makes it accessible to the public, even if not commercially.
Key differences include:
- Commercial Intent: ‘On sale’ typically involves commercial transactions or offers, while ‘public use’ may not have a commercial aspect.
- Visibility: An invention can be ‘on sale’ without being visible to the public, whereas ‘public use’ generally implies some level of public accessibility.
- Purpose: ‘On sale’ focuses on commercial exploitation, while ‘public use’ is more about the invention being accessible or observable by the public.
Both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ can trigger statutory bars to patentability, so inventors should be cautious about any activities that might fall into either category before filing a patent application.
To learn more:
Courts consider several factors to determine if a claimed invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4), these factors include:
“(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, … (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] … (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.”
It’s important to note that no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily determinative. The examiner must assess the scope and length of the activity in relation to the experimental purpose and the nature of the subject matter involved.
To learn more:
The intent of the inventor is not sufficient alone to determine whether a public use or on-sale bar applies. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(2):
“When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective evidence to support the contention.”
This means that objective evidence is crucial in determining whether a use or sale was experimental, rather than commercial. The inventor’s secret intent is not enough to overcome a statutory bar.
To learn more:
Generally, an inventor’s private use of an invention for their own enjoyment does not constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP provides guidance on this matter:
“An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her own enjoyment is not a public use.”
This principle is illustrated in the case of Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., where the court held that an inventor showing his inventive puzzle to close friends in his dorm room and later discussing it with his company president did not result in a “public use.” The key factor was that the inventor retained control over the invention.
However, it’s important to note that if the private use involves commercial exploitation or if the invention becomes accessible to the public without restrictions, it may still be considered a public use. The determination often depends on the specific circumstances and the level of control the inventor maintains over the invention.
To learn more:
No, public knowledge is not necessarily the same as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
“Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge.”
However, it’s important to note that while public knowledge may not constitute public use under 102(b), it could potentially provide grounds for rejection under other sections of the patent law, such as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
An invention is considered “ready for patenting” in the context of public use when it has been reduced to practice or when the inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention. This concept is crucial in determining whether a public use or sale has occurred before the critical date. According to MPEP 2133.03(c):
“The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may apply even though the invention is not ready for use in a commercially marketable form.”
The MPEP further clarifies that an invention can be “ready for patenting” when:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
It’s important for inventors to be aware that even if an invention is not fully perfected, it may still be considered “ready for patenting” if it meets these criteria.
To learn more:
The level of supervision during experimental use can significantly impact whether an activity is considered public use under patent law. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(5):
“The degree of supervision and control over the invention required of the inventor to establish experimental use is generally high.”
This means that inventors must maintain substantial control over their invention during testing to ensure it qualifies as experimental use rather than public use. Lack of proper supervision may lead to the activity being classified as public use, potentially affecting patent rights.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (10)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) refers specifically to the United States and its territories. According to the MPEP:
“The language ‘in this country’ in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.”
This definition is important for determining the applicability of the public use and on-sale bars in patent law.
To learn more:
Yes, in some circumstances, a secret or confidential use of an invention can constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP explains:
“[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.”
This means that even if an invention is used secretly, if it’s being commercially exploited, it may still be considered a public use. However, the mere fact that an invention is used internally by the inventor or their company to develop future products that are never sold is not sufficient by itself to create a public use bar.
It’s important to note that “public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non-secret.” The determination of whether a use is public depends on various factors, including the nature of the activity, public access, confidentiality obligations, and commercial exploitation.
To learn more:
While both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ are forms of prior art in patent law, they have distinct characteristics. According to MPEP 2152.02(d) and related sections:
- On Sale: Refers to commercial activities involving the invention, such as offers for sale or actual sales. It doesn’t necessarily require the invention to be publicly visible or used.
- Public Use: Involves the invention being used in a way that makes it accessible to the public, even if not commercially.
Key differences include:
- Commercial Intent: ‘On sale’ typically involves commercial transactions or offers, while ‘public use’ may not have a commercial aspect.
- Visibility: An invention can be ‘on sale’ without being visible to the public, whereas ‘public use’ generally implies some level of public accessibility.
- Purpose: ‘On sale’ focuses on commercial exploitation, while ‘public use’ is more about the invention being accessible or observable by the public.
Both ‘on sale’ and ‘public use’ can trigger statutory bars to patentability, so inventors should be cautious about any activities that might fall into either category before filing a patent application.
To learn more:
Courts consider several factors to determine if a claimed invention was offered for sale primarily for experimentation. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(4), these factors include:
“(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, … (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] … (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.”
It’s important to note that no single factor or combination of factors is necessarily determinative. The examiner must assess the scope and length of the activity in relation to the experimental purpose and the nature of the subject matter involved.
To learn more:
The intent of the inventor is not sufficient alone to determine whether a public use or on-sale bar applies. As stated in MPEP 2133.03(e)(2):
“When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective evidence to support the contention.”
This means that objective evidence is crucial in determining whether a use or sale was experimental, rather than commercial. The inventor’s secret intent is not enough to overcome a statutory bar.
To learn more:
Generally, an inventor’s private use of an invention for their own enjoyment does not constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP provides guidance on this matter:
“An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her own enjoyment is not a public use.”
This principle is illustrated in the case of Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., where the court held that an inventor showing his inventive puzzle to close friends in his dorm room and later discussing it with his company president did not result in a “public use.” The key factor was that the inventor retained control over the invention.
However, it’s important to note that if the private use involves commercial exploitation or if the invention becomes accessible to the public without restrictions, it may still be considered a public use. The determination often depends on the specific circumstances and the level of control the inventor maintains over the invention.
To learn more:
No, public knowledge is not necessarily the same as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
“Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge.”
However, it’s important to note that while public knowledge may not constitute public use under 102(b), it could potentially provide grounds for rejection under other sections of the patent law, such as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
An invention is considered “ready for patenting” in the context of public use when it has been reduced to practice or when the inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention. This concept is crucial in determining whether a public use or sale has occurred before the critical date. According to MPEP 2133.03(c):
“The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may apply even though the invention is not ready for use in a commercially marketable form.”
The MPEP further clarifies that an invention can be “ready for patenting” when:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
It’s important for inventors to be aware that even if an invention is not fully perfected, it may still be considered “ready for patenting” if it meets these criteria.
To learn more:
The level of supervision during experimental use can significantly impact whether an activity is considered public use under patent law. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(5):
“The degree of supervision and control over the invention required of the inventor to establish experimental use is generally high.”
This means that inventors must maintain substantial control over their invention during testing to ensure it qualifies as experimental use rather than public use. Lack of proper supervision may lead to the activity being classified as public use, potentially affecting patent rights.
To learn more: