How do I determine if my patent application is subject to pre-AIA or AIA provisions?
To determine whether your application is subject to pre-AIA or AIA provisions, consider the following guidelines from the MPEP: Applications filed before March 16, 2013, are governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, are subject to AIA provisions, unless they have never contained a claim with…
Read MoreWhat are the key changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 introduced by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)?
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised 35 U.S.C. 102 and thereby, the standard to determine what prior art is available during examination of an application. As stated in the MPEP, “The changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application filed before March 16, 2013.” This means…
Read MoreWhat is the impact of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 on the scope of prior art?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has significantly expanded the scope of prior art that can be used in obviousness rejections. The MPEP 2158 explains: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 differs from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in that AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 determines obviousness as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, rather than as of…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 define prior art for obviousness determinations?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 relies on AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) to define prior art for both novelty and obviousness determinations. The MPEP states: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) defines what is prior art both for purposes of novelty under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as well as for purposes of obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103.“ This…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 affect the determination of obviousness?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has modified the determination of obviousness in patent examination. The key changes include: Elimination of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), which provided a safe harbor for commonly owned prior art or prior art resulting from a joint research agreement. Introduction of a new prior art exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 treat commonly owned prior art?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has changed the treatment of commonly owned prior art in obviousness determinations. The MPEP 2158 states: “The AIA eliminated the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) safe harbor for subject matter commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the claimed invention was made.” Instead,…
Read MoreWhat changes did AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 make to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) and 103(c)?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 made significant changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) and 103(c): Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b): This provision, which applied to biotechnological inventions, has been eliminated in AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c): This has been eliminated, but similar provisions have been introduced in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c). The…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in relation to secondary considerations?
The key difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in relation to secondary considerations lies in their applicability: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Novelty): Secondary considerations are not relevant and cannot overcome rejections based on this section. 35 U.S.C. 103 (Non-obviousness): Secondary considerations can be used to support non-obviousness arguments. MPEP 2131.04 states: “Evidence of…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between 35 U.S.C. 101 and other patentability requirements?
While 35 U.S.C. 101 is a crucial tool for determining patent eligibility, it is not the sole criterion for patentability. The MPEP clarifies: “Examiners are reminded that 35 U.S.C. 101 is not the sole tool for determining patentability; 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 will provide additional tools for ensuring that…
Read MoreCan a terminal disclaimer be used to overcome a prior art rejection?
No, a terminal disclaimer cannot be used to overcome a prior art rejection. Terminal disclaimers are specifically designed to address nonstatutory double patenting issues, not prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. MPEP 804.02 clearly states: “It should be emphasized that a terminal disclaimer cannot be used to overcome a prior art rejection…
Read More