What is considered “patented” under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), “patented” refers to a prior patent that discloses the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the current application. The MPEP states: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) indicates that a prior patent of a claimed invention will preclude the grant of a subsequent patent on the claimed invention.” This means…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the patent grant date for prior art under AIA?
What is the significance of the patent grant date for prior art under AIA? Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the patent grant date is crucial for determining prior art status. According to MPEP 2152.02(a), “Once a patent is granted, the right to exclude granted by a patent no longer requires that a patent application…
Read MoreHow can an applicant overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection based on prior art with a common assignee?
How can an applicant overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection based on prior art with a common assignee? An applicant can overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection based on prior art with a common assignee by invoking the common ownership exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). According to MPEP 2152.06: “An applicant may show that the…
Read MoreDoes AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) require evaluation of actual entitlement to priority or benefit?
No, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) does not require evaluation of actual entitlement to priority or benefit when determining the effective filing date for prior art purposes. The MPEP clearly states: “As a result of this distinction, the question of whether a patent or published application is actually entitled to priority or benefit with respect to…
Read MoreHow does new matter in a continuation-in-part (CIP) application affect the effective filing date?
New matter introduced in a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can significantly affect the effective filing date of certain claims. The MPEP 2152.01 provides guidance on this issue: “In the case of a continuation-in-part application, any claims that are fully supported by a prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of that prior-filed…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of March 16, 2013 in patent law?
March 16, 2013 is a crucial date in patent law due to the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). This date determines which version of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 applies to a patent application. As stated in MPEP 2159.03: “Even if AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 apply to a patent application, pre-AIA…
Read MoreWhat are inventor-originated prior public disclosures?
Inventor-originated prior public disclosures are another type of prior art exception under the America Invents Act (AIA). These disclosures refer to public disclosures made by the inventor or a joint inventor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The MPEP section 2153 mentions this concept: See MPEP § 2153.02 for prior art exceptions…
Read MoreWhat should examiners consider when performing an interference search for applications with different effective filing dates?
Patent examiners must be particularly careful when conducting interference searches for applications that may have claims with different effective filing dates. The MPEP 2304.01(a) provides guidance on this matter: “Examiners are reminded that some applications, such as continuation-in-part applications, may contain claims entitled to different effective filing dates (see MPEP §§ 2133.01 and 2152.01), and…
Read MoreHow do examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections?
How do examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections? Examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections by considering several factors: The actual filing date of the patent application Any priority claims to earlier applications The filing date of the earliest application that supports the claimed invention According…
Read MoreHow are tie situations handled when two applications with interfering claims are ready to issue?
In the rare situation where two applications with interfering claims are both ready to issue simultaneously, the USPTO follows specific guidelines as outlined in MPEP 2303.01: “Two applications, E and F, which are both subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), with interfering claims are pending. Both are ready to issue. (Such ties should be extremely…
Read More