How does the AIA affect the grace period for prior art in patent applications?
The America Invents Act (AIA) introduced significant changes to the grace period for prior art in patent applications. MPEP 715.01(d) explains: ‘For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 generally apply for subject matter to which the current 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) dates to be one year or…
Read MoreHow does the AIA grace period affect 37 CFR 1.130(a) declarations?
The AIA grace period significantly impacts the use and effectiveness of 37 CFR 1.130(a) declarations. According to MPEP 717.01(a): The provisions of 37 CFR 1.130(a) are available to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) based on a disclosure with a prior art date after the grace period. The AIA grace period, defined…
Read MoreWhat is the grace period for disclosures under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)?
The AIA provides a one-year grace period for certain disclosures made before the effective filing date of a claimed invention. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) states: A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if— (A)…
Read MoreHow does the AIA affect the treatment of common ownership in patent applications?
The America Invents Act (AIA) has significantly changed how common ownership is treated in patent applications. While MPEP 715.01(b) primarily deals with pre-AIA law, it provides guidance on the transition: For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP § 2154.02(c). This reference to MPEP § 2154.02(c) indicates that for AIA applications, different rules…
Read MoreHow does common ownership affect prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)?
Common ownership can disqualify certain disclosures as prior art under the AIA. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides an exception for commonly owned subject matter. The MPEP states: 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that a disclosure made in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application shall not be prior art to a claimed…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between 37 CFR 1.131(c) and the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA?
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.131(c) are not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA). This is clearly stated in the editor’s note at the beginning of MPEP 718: [Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination…
Read MoreWhat is the effect of a benefit claim on the effective filing date of a continuing application?
What is the effect of a benefit claim on the effective filing date of a continuing application? A benefit claim to a prior-filed application can significantly impact the effective filing date of a continuing application. The MPEP 211.01(b) explains: ‘The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not…
Read MoreWhat happens if a nonprovisional application claims benefit of multiple provisional applications?
What happens if a nonprovisional application claims benefit of multiple provisional applications? When a nonprovisional application claims the benefit of multiple provisional applications, each provisional application must satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 for the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application. As stated in MPEP…
Read MoreWhat happens if a prior-filed application lacks adequate written description for a claimed invention?
If a prior-filed application lacks adequate written description for a claimed invention, the following consequences may occur: The claim in the later-filed application will not be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application for that invention. The effective filing date for the claimed invention will be the filing date of…
Read MoreWhat happens if a continuation-in-part application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application?
When a continuation-in-part (CIP) application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the following consequences apply: Claims solely directed to subject matter adequately disclosed in the parent application are entitled to the parent application’s filing date. Claims that include new matter introduced in the CIP are only entitled to the filing date of…
Read More