The applicant attempted to demonstrate that the object disclosed in copy  is excluded from the state of the art in point 35.C 102 (b) (2) (C) by indicating that the claimed invention was subject to a joint research agreement no later than after the actual filing date of the claimed invention. However, the applicant did not do so . The applicant must submit the missing requirements in order to correctly indicate, with the exception of the object disclosed in reference 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (2) (C). See 37 CFR 1.71 (g) (1) and 1.104 (c) (4) (ii). The USPTO indicated that its decision that a state-of-the-art event made an invention available to the public will be based on the AIA`s jurisprudence regarding accessibility and public availability11. in which persons who are interested in the object or art and are generally qualified[,] it can be located” (Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.
(698 F.3d 1374) (Fed). Cir. Therefore, according to the USPTO`s interpretation, undisclosed disclosures to the public (z.B. those subject to a confidentiality agreement) should not be considered to be the state of the art under the AIA. Nor is it necessary that mode (for example patenting. B, publication, public use, sales activity) of disclosure by a common inventor or inventor is identical to the nature of disclosure between the two. For example, the inventor or common inventor may have made the subject public through a slide at a scientific meeting, while the intermediate disclosure of the object may have been made in a journal article. The evidence required to prove that the disclosure comes from the inventor or a common inventor requires a case analysis depending on whether the disclosure itself or the patent application indicates that the disclosure is a revelation emanating from the inventor. For more information, please visit mpep 2155.01 and 2155.03.
This provision is similar to the current disqualification procedure for a publication that is not discussed by “others” in mpep 2132.01, except that 35 U.S.C 102 (b) (1) (A) only requires that disclosure come from a common inventor or inventor. 37 CFR 1.104 (c) (4) contains the provisions relating to the subject of a joint research agreement on applications and patents, the 35 United States. C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103. In particular, 37 CFR 1.104 (c) (4) applies the provisions of 35 U.S.C.C 102 (b) (2) (C) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (c) in the AIA. Thus, 37 CFR 1.104 (c) (4) apply to applications and patents, the 35 United States. C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103. 37 CFR 1.130 (a) provides that the applicant or patent holder, in the event of a resensitization of a claim or patent, may file a declaration or declaration of disqualification as a state of the art by demonstrating that the disclosure was made by the common inventor or that the disclosed object was obtained directly or indirectly by the inventor or inventor.