Timeline for What date the examiner will use when interpreting an embodiment for novelty?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 2019 at 19:36 | comment | added | PrivateUser | Got it. Thanks. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 19:29 | comment | added | George White♦ | it is better to ask a new question as a new question. Normally the examiner will look for prior art that is dated before the non-provisional filing and it is up to you to then respond by pointing out the support in the earlier-filed provisional application to counter the cited reference that occurred in between the filings. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 16:28 | comment | added | PrivateUser | Hello Mr. White, I have a follow-up question. If provisional application and non-provisional application has the same content, can the examiner use the latter date? e.g. First application was filed in 2010 and the second application was filed in 2020 which has the exact embodiment as the first application. Since the RFC was published in 2015, can the examiner reject my application for lacking novelty by using the second application as reference? Or I can use the first application filing date to defend myself? Thanks | |
| Oct 29, 2019 at 21:04 | comment | added | PrivateUser | Thanks. much appreciated. Yes, I keep forgetting to use the term "provisional patent application". Thanks for the reminder. | |
| Oct 29, 2019 at 21:03 | vote | accept | PrivateUser | ||
| Oct 29, 2019 at 20:21 | history | answered | George White♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |