How does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) differ from AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B)?

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) and AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) are similar provisions, but they apply to different types of prior art disclosures. The MPEP states:

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides that a grace period disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor. Similarly, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) provides that a disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor.

The key differences are:

  • 102(b)(1)(B) applies to disclosures that fall under 102(a)(1) (publicly available disclosures)
  • 102(b)(2)(B) applies to disclosures that fall under 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents, published applications, and PCT applications)
  • 102(b)(2)(B) refers to the effective filing date of the disclosure, while 102(b)(1)(B) refers to the date of the disclosure itself

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2155.02 - Showing That The Subject Matter Disclosed Had Been Previously Publicly Disclosed By The Inventor Or A Joint Inventor, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: 102(B)(1)(B), 102(B)(2)(B), AIA, prior art exceptions