Source: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/706_02_k.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 19:41:05
Document Index: 14848149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§706', '§706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 715', '§ 715', '§ 718']

MPEP 706.02(k): Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
MPEP 706.02(k)
Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
Previous: §706.02(j) | Next: §706.02(l)
706.02(k) Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-07.2015]
Effective November 29, 1999, subject matter which was prior art under former 35 U.S.C. 103 via pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was disqualified as prior art against the claimed invention if that subject matter and the claimed invention "were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person." This amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) was made pursuant to section 4807 of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA); see Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-591 (1999). The changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002)) did not affect the exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended on November 29, 1999. Subsequently, the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)) further amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to provide that subject matter developed by another person shall be treated as owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person for purposes of determining obviousness if three conditions are met:
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement (hereinafter "joint research agreement disqualification").
These changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) apply to all patents (including reissue patents) granted on or after December 10, 2004 and issuing from applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). The amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) made by the AIPA to change "subsection (f) or (g)" to "one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g)" applies to applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 that are not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note).
For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, it is the 1999 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) that are applicable to the disqualifying commonly assigned/owned prior art provisions of pre-AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) for additional information regarding disqualified prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed prior to November 29, 1999, neither the 1999 nor the 2004 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) are applicable. Therefore, only prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) may be disqualified under the commonly assigned/owned prior art provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
II. PROVISIONAL OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Where two applications of different inventive entities are copending, not published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and the filing dates differ, a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) should be made in the later filed application unless the application has been excluded under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3) for examination procedure with respect to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See also MPEP § 706.02(f) for examination procedure in determining when provisional rejections are appropriate. Otherwise the confidential status of unpublished application, or any part thereof, under 35 U.S.C. 122 must be maintained. Such a rejection alerts the applicant that he or she can expect an actual rejection on the same ground if one of the applications issues and also lets applicant know that action must be taken to avoid the rejection.
This gives applicant the opportunity to analyze the propriety of the rejection and possibly avoid the loss of rights to desired subject matter. Provisional rejections of the obviousness type under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) are rejections applied to copending applications having different effective filing dates wherein each application has a common assignee or a common inventor. The earlier filed application, if patented or published, would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The rejection can be overcome by:
(A) Arguing patentability over the earlier filed application;
(B) Combining the subject matter of the copending applications into a single application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the prior applications and abandoning the copending applications (Note that a claim in a subsequently filed application that relies on a combination of prior applications may not be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 if the earlier filed application does not contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 for the claim in the subsequently filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997).);
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that any unclaimed invention disclosed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of the other application and is thus not invention "by another" (see MPEP §§ 715.01(a), 715.01(c), and 716.10);
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing a date of invention prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application. See MPEP § 715; or
(E) For an application that is pending on or after December 10, 2004, a showing that (1) the prior art and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, or (2) the subject matter is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) (i.e., joint research agreement disqualification).
Where the applications are claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a), a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in a common ownership situation if the earlier filed application has been published or matured into a patent. See MPEP § 718.
If a provisional rejection is made and the copending applications are combined into a single application and the resulting single application is subject to a restriction requirement, the divisional application would not be subject to a provisional or actual rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 since the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 preclude the use of a patent issuing therefrom as a reference against the other application. Additionally, the resulting continuation-in-part is entitled to 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit of each of the prior applications. This is illustrated in Example 2, below.
The following examples are illustrative of the application of 35 U.S.C. 103 in applications filed prior to November 29, 1999 for which a patent was granted prior to December 10, 2004:
Example 1. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed.
1. A invents X and later files application. This is permissible.
2. B modifies X to XY. B files application before A’s filing. No 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g); provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in A’s later-filed application based on B’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Provisional double patenting rejection made.
3. B’s patent issues. A’s claims rejected over B’s patent under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and double patenting.
4. A files 37 CFR 1.131(c) affidavit to disqualify B’s patent as prior art where interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a) is being claimed. Terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c). Rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be overcome and double patenting rejection may be overcome if inventions X and XY are commonly owned and all requirements of 37 CFR 1.131(c) and 1.321 are met.
In situation (2.) above, the result is a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the later-filed application based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The rejection is provisional since the subject matter and the prior art are pending applications.
Example 2. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed.
1. A invents X and files application. This is permissible.
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files application establishing that A and B were both under obligation to assign inventions to C at the time the inventions were made. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in B’s later-filed application based on A’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) made; provisional double patenting rejection made; no 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g) made.
3. A and B jointly file continuing application claiming priority to both their earlier applications and abandon the earlier applications. Assume it is proper that restriction be required between X and XY.
4. X is elected, a patent issues on X, and a divisional application is timely filed on XY. No rejection of divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in view of 35 U.S.C. 121.
The following examples are illustrative of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in applications that are pending on or after December 10, 2004:
Example 3. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed. Employee A’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
2. B modifies X to XY. B files application before A’s filing. A files an application on invention X. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of A’s later-filed application based on B’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and a provisional double patenting rejection are made.
3. B’s patent issues. A’s claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on B’s patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and double patenting.
4. A files evidence of common ownership of inventions X and XY at the time invention XY was made to disqualify B’s patent as prior art. In addition, A files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c). Rejection of A’s claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) will be withdrawn and double patenting rejection will be obviated if inventions X and XY are commonly owned at the time invention XY was made and all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
In situation (2.) above, the result is a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the later-filed application based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (the earlier-filed application). The rejection is provisional since the subject matter and the prior art are pending applications.
Example 4. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed. Employee B’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files evidence in B’s application establishing that A and B were both under obligation to assign inventions to C at the time the invention XY was made. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of B’s claims based on A’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) cannot be made; provisional double patenting rejection is made; no 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g) is made.
3. B files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c). The provisional double patenting rejection made in B’s application would be obviated if all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
Example 5. Assumption: Employee A works for assignee I and Employee B works for assignee J. There is a joint research agreement, pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), between assignees I and J. Employees A and B each filed an application as set forth below. Employee B’s invention claimed in his application was made after the joint research agreement was entered into, and it was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint agreement. Employee B’s application discloses assignees I and J as the parties to the joint research agreement. Employee B’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files evidence in B’s application establishing a joint research agreement in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of B’s claims based on A’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) cannot be made; provisional double patenting rejection is made; no 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 35 U.S.C. 102(g) made.
3. B files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321. The provisional double patenting rejection made in B’s application would be obviated if all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
III. EXAMINATION OF CONTINUING APPLICATION COMMONLY OWNED WITH ABANDONED PARENT APPLICATION TO WHICH BENEFIT IS CLAIMED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 120
An application claiming the benefit of a prior filed copending national or international application under 35 U.S.C. 120 must name as an inventor at least one inventor named in the prior filed application. The prior filed application must also disclose the named inventor’s invention claimed in at least one claim of the later filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. This practice contrasts with the practice in effect prior to November 8, 1984 (the date of enactment of Public Law 98-622) where the inventorship entity in each of the applications was required to be the same for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120.
So long as the applications have at least one inventor in common and the other requirements are met, the Office will permit a claim for 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit without any additional submissions or notifications from applicants regarding inventorship differences.
In addition to the normal examination conducted by the examiner, he or she must examine the earlier filed application to determine if the earlier and later applications have at least one inventor in common and that the other 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 requirements are met. The claim for 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit will be permitted without examination of the earlier application for disclosure and support of at least one claim of the later filed application under 35 U.S.C. 112 unless it becomes necessary to do so, for example, because of an intervening reference.