Comments on: Q) Costa Rica and Sweeden – PCT (1800) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:43:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Stephen http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-3555 Stephen Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:08:34 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-3555 Yes, the EARLIEST of the filing dates. The patent term would be from the international filing date I believe. I don't think provisional applications are ever used as a measurement for patent term. Yes, the EARLIEST of the filing dates. The patent term would be from the international filing date I believe. I don’t think provisional applications are ever used as a measurement for patent term.

]]> By: S http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-2536 S Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:33:02 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-2536 I got all the three with the same fact patterns, same date- all had answer choices of keeping the filing date but forwarding to IB. I got all the three with the same fact patterns, same date- all had answer choices of keeping the filing date but forwarding to IB.

]]> By: Rick http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-2326 Rick Sun, 16 May 2010 08:11:04 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-2326 706.02(f)(1) Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) "If such an international application properly claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application, or to an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application, apply the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the earlier filing date, assuming all the conditions of 35 U.S.C. 102(e), 119(e), 120, or 365(c) are met." 706.02(f)(1) Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)

“If such an international application properly claims benefit
to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application,
or to an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application,
apply the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the
earlier filing date, assuming all the conditions of
35 U.S.C. 102(e), 119(e), 120, or 365(c) are met.”

]]> By: S http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-1816 S Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:18:39 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-1816 Can somebody pl direct me to the concerned chapter? Thank you/ Can somebody pl direct me to the concerned chapter?
Thank you/

]]> By: S http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-1815 S Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:17:54 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-1815 Is a provisional application ever used to measure the 102(e) date? Is a provisional application ever used to measure the 102(e) date?

]]> By: Emily M. http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-989 Emily M. Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:02:19 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-989 I got Sweden, Germany, and Costa Rica - same fact pattern, same date - all had answer choices of keeping the filing date but forwarding to IB. There was also another similar question, I think the IA was filed in another language. I got Sweden, Germany, and Costa Rica – same fact pattern, same date – all had answer choices of keeping the filing date but forwarding to IB. There was also another similar question, I think the IA was filed in another language.

]]> By: International Searching Authority http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-988 International Searching Authority Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:44:35 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-988 It's Sweden, not Sweeden. It’s Sweden, not Sweeden.

]]> By: AD http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-987 AD Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:42:59 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-987 BE CAREFUL Filing Date v. Prior Art 102(e) Date: I had two back to back questions as mentioned in the original post with Costa Rica & Germany. One of the questions asked about the prior art 102(e) date and one asked about the patent term being measured from the filing date (which claimed a US provisional priority). I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that the 102(e) date is measured from the US provisional, while the filing date is from International Application (no priority claimed) BE CAREFUL Filing Date v. Prior Art 102(e) Date:

I had two back to back questions as mentioned in the original post with Costa Rica & Germany.

One of the questions asked about the prior art 102(e) date and one asked about the patent term being measured from the filing date (which claimed a US provisional priority).

I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that the 102(e) date is measured from the US provisional, while the filing date is from International Application (no priority claimed)

]]> By: Lucifer Johnsonville http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-986 Lucifer Johnsonville Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:35:40 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-986 Where no applicant indicated on the request papers is a resident or national of the United States, the USPTO is not a competent receiving Office for the international application under PCT Rule 19.1(a). Nonetheless, the date the international application was filed in the USPTO will not be lost as a filing date for the international application if at least one applicant is a resident or national of any PCT Contracting State. Sorry for the mulitple SWEDEN posts---- here is the final answer. Where no applicant indicated on the request papers is a resident or national of the United States, the USPTO is not a competent receiving Office for the international application under PCT Rule 19.1(a). Nonetheless, the date the international application was filed in the USPTO will not be lost as a filing date for the international application if at least one applicant is a resident or national of any PCT Contracting State.

Sorry for the mulitple SWEDEN posts—- here is the final answer.

]]> By: Lucifer Johnsonville http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-985 Lucifer Johnsonville Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:24:16 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-985 PCT Rule 59.3 was amended July 1, 1998 to provide a safeguard in the case of a Demand filed with an International Preliminary Examining Authority which is not competent for the international preliminary examination of a particular international application. The USPTO will forward such a Demand to the International Bureau and the International Bureau will forward the Demand to a competent International Preliminary Examining Authority pursuant to PCT Rule 59.3(c). The competent International Preliminary Examining Authority will process the Demand based on the date of receipt in the USPTO. See 37 CFR 1.416(c)(2). PCT Rule 59.3 was amended July 1, 1998 to provide a safeguard in the case of a Demand filed with an International Preliminary Examining Authority which is not competent for the international preliminary examination of a particular international application. The USPTO will forward such a Demand to the International Bureau and the International Bureau will forward the Demand to a competent International Preliminary Examining Authority pursuant to PCT Rule 59.3(c). The competent International Preliminary Examining Authority will process the Demand based on the date of receipt in the USPTO. See 37 CFR 1.416(c)(2).

]]>