3.3 Prior Art Types & Public Availability Standards

3.3 Prior Art Types & Public Availability Standards

1. Printed Publication Standard & Public Accessibility

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), a core category of prior art is the printed publication. The legal test for determining whether a document constitutes a "printed publication" does not depend on traditional ink-on-paper printing or widespread distribution. Rather, as articulated by the Federal Circuit (In re Hall, In re Cronyn, In re Klopfenstein), the key inquiry is public accessibility:

A reference is a printed publication if it has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.

Specific Applications of the Public Accessibility Test:

• Library Cataloging and Indexing (In re Hall): A single doctoral dissertation filed in a university library qualifies as a printed publication once it is indexed and cataloged in a manner that renders it accessible to the public.
• Unindexed Library Theses (In re Cronyn): A student thesis placed in a library without subject matter indexing or retrieval capability is not publicly accessible, and thus fails to qualify as a printed publication.
• Conference Presentations and Posters (In re Klopfenstein): Slide presentations and poster displays at professional conferences qualify as printed publications even if no paper copies are distributed, provided they are displayed for a sufficient duration without confidentiality restrictions to interested persons skilled in the art.
• Digital and Online Disclosures: Internet webpages, open-source code repositories (e.g., GitHub commits), online forum postings, and archived web pages (e.g., Wayback Machine captures) qualify as printed publications as of the date they become indexed or accessible to the public.

---

2. Patents and Published Patent Applications (Including WIPO/PCT Art)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), U.S. patents, published U.S. patent applications, and published international WIPO (PCT) applications serve as prior art as of their earliest effective filing date.

AIA Treatment of International (PCT) Applications:

Under Pre-AIA § 102(e), a WIPO PCT application served as U.S. prior art as of its international filing date only if it designated the United States, was published in English under PCT Article 21(2), and entered the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371.

The AIA completely eliminated these restrictions. Under AIA § 102(a)(2) and § 100(i):

• A published PCT application designating the U.S. qualifies as § 102(a)(2) prior art as of its international filing date (or foreign priority date);
• This prior art date applies regardless of the publication language (whether published in Japanese, French, German, etc.);
• The reference qualifies regardless of whether it ever enters the U.S. national stage under § 371.

---

3. Public Use and On-Sale Bar Standards under § 102(a)(1)

A. The On-Sale Bar and the Pfaff v. Wells Electronics Test

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), an invention is barred from patentability if it was "on sale" before the effective filing date. In Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (525 U.S. 55), the Supreme Court established a strict two-part test for determining when an invention is on sale:

1. Commercial Offer for Sale: The product embodying the invention must be the subject of a definite, commercial offer for sale under contract law principles (i.e., an offer that another party could accept to form a binding contract).
2. Ready for Patenting: The invention must be ready for patenting at the time of the commercial offer. This condition can be satisfied in either of two ways:
   • Actual Reduction to Practice: Proof that a working prototype of the invention was constructed and successfully tested; or
   • Enabling Disclosure: Proof that prior to the offer date, the inventor had prepared drawings or written descriptions sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.

Secret / Confidential Sales (Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva):

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (139 S. Ct. 628, 2019), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the enactment of the AIA did not alter the historical understanding of the on-sale bar. Under AIA § 102(a)(1), a commercial sale or offer for sale to a third party triggers the on-sale bar even if the details of the claimed invention are kept secret from the public under a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.

B. Public Use Bar

A public use under § 102(a)(1) occurs whenever the claimed invention is used in its natural and intended way by a person other than the inventor who is under no obligation of secrecy, or used commercially by the inventor in public view.

---

4. The Experimental Use Exception & Secret Disclosures

The Experimental Use Doctrine (City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.):

Public testing or commercial evaluation of an invention that would otherwise trigger the § 102(a)(1) public use or on-sale bar is excused if it qualifies under the Experimental Use Exception.

• Core Purpose: As established in City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co. (97 U.S. 126), if the primary purpose of the public testing activity is bona fide experimentation to refine the invention or verify that it operates for its intended purpose, the activity does not constitute a statutory public use or commercial sale under § 102(a)(1).
• Evidentiary Factors Evaluated by Examiners (MPEP § 2133.03(e)):
  1. The degree of control exercised by the inventor over the testing;
  2. The duration of the testing relative to similar commercial products;
  3. Whether secrecy obligations were imposed on testers;
  4. Whether payment was received for the testing (and whether profit was made);
  5. Whether detailed progress records and test data were maintained.

Secret Disclosures vs. Public Availability:

• Internal Corporate R&D: Internal secret uses or trade secret development inside a corporation do not constitute public use under § 102(a)(1) against third parties.
• Secret Commercial Exploitation: If an inventor secretly uses a process in commercial production for more than 1 year before filing, that secret commercial use bars the inventor under § 102(a)(1) (though it does not bar independent third parties who subsequently invent).