Pre-Non-Provisional Patent Scenario and Survival

[Jp]

Just some information that may possibly induce some Inspiration if not American Inspiration, . . .

Was it not A.G. Bell who won his patent by introducing a lab note ?

The Deep Rooted Constitutionality of Our Free Enterprise System

Qoutations from ;
First-to-File vs. First-to-Invent: Who Really Benefits from Changing the U.S. Patent System?

" In the United States, an inventor who diligently worked on reducing his or her invention to practice by building a prototype and/or filing a patent application is entitled to the date of conception as the "priority date," so long as that inventor did not abandon, suppress or conceal the invention. Under these circumstances, the first inventor to conceive of the invention is entitled to a patent.

When two inventors file patent applications on the same invention, there may be an interference hearing before the Board of Appeals and Interferences at the US Patent Office to determine who conceived of the invention first, and whether the inventors have been diligent in reducing their inventions to practice. This is an expensive and involved procedure.

This is, in essence, how the First-to-Invent patent system works. The United States and the Philippines are the only two countries in the world whose patent systems are based on First-to-Invent regime. The rest of the world uses the First-to-File system, which gives priority to the inventor who first files a patent application, regardless of the date of conception.

Among the advantages of the US First-to-Invent system is that it rewards the first inventor, not the winner of the race to the Patent Office."

My comment here regards the, "Provisional Application", this is the document that provides the Patent Application Examiner to refer to in regards to the previous 12 month stature that the PP was filed and thereby giving, "indisputable" credence to the, "non-Provisional Patent Application" and the invention conception date, correct ?

[JimIvey]

There are a number of qualifications to all that.

First, this is only between two applicants for patents. 

Second, invention is conception plus reduction to practice.  You have to not only document conception but also a working prototype.  Date of invention is the date of the working prototype (or the filing of an enabling patent application).  If you can show an unbroken chain of due diligence from the date of conception to the date of your first working prototype and/or the filing of the patent application, then -- and only then -- is your conception date your date of invention.

Third, the prior inventor only prevails in US law if they have not "abandoned, suppressed, or concealed" their invention.  35 USC 102(g).

Fourth, for a provisional application to provide any proof of invention, the provisional application must do more than just prove conception -- it must also be enabling of the invention as claimed.  In other words, it must meet the very same legal standard for sufficiency as does a non-provisional application.

In short, here's my advice for those not deeply familiar with all the nuances and subtleties of US patent law.  Treat the US as a first-to-file country and forget about provisional applications.

Regards.

[Jp]

In that case,  . .

The fate of our Freedom is in the hands of those who took from the Patent application the Oath of Declaration.

That is not good.