Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
Notice regarding Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires all United States Federal Agencies with websites to make them accessible to individuals with disabilities. At this time, the MPEP [HTML] files below do not meet all standards for web accessibility. Until changes can be made to make them fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, the USPTO is providing access assistance via telephone. MPEP Interim Accessibility Contact: 703-305-8813.
1504.02 Novelty [R-2] - 1500 Design Patents
1504.02 Novelty [R-2]
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
**>(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or<
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
35 U.S.C. 172 Right of priority.
The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 of this title and the time specified in section 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) of this title shall not apply to designs.
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F.2d 942, 133 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2d at 943, 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, Patents For Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the factual inquiry in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the same as in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts when evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the claimed design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."
When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. In re Cornwall, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1956); Jones v. Progress Ind. Inc., 119 USPQ 92 (D. R.I. 1958). Further, in a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102, mere differences in functional considerations do not negate a finding of anticipation when determining design patentability. Black & Decker, Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 636 F.2d 1193, 231 USPQ 252 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
It is not necessary for the examiner to cite or apply prior art to show that functional and/or hidden features are old in the art as long as the examiner has properly relied on evidence to support the prima facie lack of ornamentality of these individual features. If applicant wishes to rely on functional or hidden features as a basis for patentability, the same standard for establishing ornamentality under 35 U.S.C. 171 must be applied before these features can be given any patentable weight. See MPEP § 1504.01(c).
In evaluating a statutory bar based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b), the experimental use exception to a statutory bar for public use or sale (see MPEP § 2133.03(e)) does not usually apply for design patents. See In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, Tone Brothers, Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1200, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that "experimentation directed to functional features of a product also containing an ornamental design may negate what otherwise would be considered a public use within the meaning of section 102(b)." See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(6).
Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) and 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. (See Ex parte Lancaster, 151 USPQ 713 (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Marinissen, 155 USPQ 528 (Bd. App. 1966); Appeal No. 239-48, Decided April 30, 1965, 151 USPQ 711, (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Appeal decided September 3, 1968, 866 O.G. 16 (Bd. App. 1966). The basis of this practice is that if the foreign applicant has received the protection offered in the foreign country, no matter what the protection is called ("patent," "Design Registration," etc.), if the United States application is timely filed, a claim for priority will vest. If, on the other hand, the U.S. application is not timely filed, a statutory bar arises under 35 U.S.C. 102(d) as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172. In order for the filing to be timely for priority purposes and to avoid possible statutory bars, the U.S. design patent application must be made within 6 months of the foreign filing. See also MPEP § 1504.10.
The laws of each foreign country vary in one or more respects.
The following table sets forth the dates on which design rights can be enforced in a foreign country (INID Code (24)) and thus, are also useable in a 35 U.S.C. 102(d) rejection as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172. It should be noted that in many countries the date of registration or grant is the filing date.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(d) as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172 should only be made when the examiner knows that the application for foreign registration/patent has actually issued before the U. S. filing date based on an application filed more than six (6) months prior to filing the application in the United States. If the grant of a registration/patent based on the foreign application is not evident from the record of the U. S. application or from information found within the preceding charts, then the statement below should be included in the first action on the merits of the application:
¶ 15.03.01 Foreign Filing More Than 6 Months Before U.S. Filing
Acknowledgment is made of the [1] application identified in the declaration which was filed more than six months prior to the filing date of the present application. Applicant is reminded that if the [2] application matured into a form of patent protection before the filing date of the present application it would constitute a statutory bar to the issuance of a design patent in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 102(d) in view of 35 U.S.C. 172.
Examiner Note
In brackets 1 and 2, insert the name of country where application was filed.Form paragraphs for use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are set forth below.
¶ 15.11 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being clearly anticipated by [1] because the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
¶ 15.12 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by [1] because the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, or in public use or on sale in this country more than one (1) year prior to the application for patent in the United States.
¶ 15.13 35 U.S.C. 102(c) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) because the invention has been abandoned.
¶ 15.14 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/ 172 Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(d), as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172, as being clearly anticipated by [1] because the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate by the applicant, or his/her legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than six (6) months before the filing of the application in the United States.
¶ 15.15 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being clearly anticipated by [1] because the invention was described in a patented or published application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
¶ 15.16 35 U.S.C. 102(f) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) because applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
¶ 15.17 35 U.S.C. 102(g) Rejection
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) because, before the applicant's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.
**>¶ 15.24.05 Identical Claim: Common Assignee
The claim is directed to the same invention as that of the claim of commonly assigned copending Application No. [1]. The issue of priority under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly 35 U.S.C. 102(f) of this single invention must be resolved. Since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of common ownership (see MPEP § 2302), the assignee is required to state which entity is the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter. A terminal disclaimer has no effect in this situation since the basis for refusing more than one patent is priority of invention under 35 U.S.C.102(f) or (g) and not an extension of monopoly. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a holding of abandonment of this application.
The following form paragraph should be included after the form paragraph setting forth the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a), (b), (d) or (e) to provide an explanation of the applied reference.
¶ 15.15.01 Explanation of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), (d), or (e)
The shape and appearance of [1] is identical in all material respects to that of the claimed design, Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Examiner Note
1. This paragraph should be included after paragraph 15.11, 15.12, 15.14 or 15.15 to explain the basis of the rejection.
2. In bracket [1], identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
The following form paragraphs may be used to reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) over an application or patent having an earlier effective U.S. filing date with a common inventor and/or assignee, or that discloses but does not claim the design.
**>¶ 15.15.02 Provisional 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed in another application with common inventor and/or assignee
The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application.
Based upon the different inventive entity and the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application.
Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in the [3] application, the examiner suggests overcoming this provisional rejection in one of the following ways: (A) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention "by another;" (B) a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; (C) Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; or (D) Perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78(a) and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application (utility or design) with an earlier filing date that discloses (but does not claim) the claimed invention which has not been patented or published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor.
2. Use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor's Protection Act (form paragraph 7.12) to determine the reference's prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) ( form paragraph 7.12.01) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365 (c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
¶ 15.15.03 Provisional 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection - design claimed in an earlier filed design patent application with common inventor and/or assignee
The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by the claim in copending Design Patent Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application.
Based upon the different inventive entity and the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future patenting of the copending application. The rejection may be overcome by abandoning the earlier filed copending application.
Examiner Note
1. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.05 to notify the applicant that the question of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 102(f)/(g) also exists .
<¶ 15.15.04 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed in a patent
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by patent [1].
Based upon the different inventive entity and the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in patent [2], the examiner suggests overcoming this rejection in one of the following ways: A) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention "by another;" (B) a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; (C) Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; or (D) Perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78(a) and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier filed design or utility patent but is not claimed therein. When the design claimed in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier filed design patent, it would most often be in the form of subcombination subject matter, (part or portion of an article), that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article. It may also be unclaimed subject matter depicted in broken lines in the earlier filed application.
2. In brackets 1 and 2, insert number of patent .
<The following form paragraphs may be used in a second or subsequent action, where appropriate.
¶ 15.38 Rejection Maintained
The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under [1] should be withdrawn.
Examiner Note
In bracket 1, insert basis of rejection.**>¶ 15.40.01 Final Rejection Under Other Statutory Provisions
The claim is again and FINALLY REJECTED under [1] as [2].
Examiner Note
1. In bracket 1, insert statutory basis.
2. In bracket 2, insert reasons for rejection.
3. See paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700, for "Action is Final" and "Advisory after Final" paragraphs.
<
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents