35 U.S.C. 102 determines when prior art can defeat patent novelty, subject to statutory exceptions. For modern applications, the effective filing date and the America Invents Act framework are central. Novelty is separate from nonobviousness and other patentability requirements. [1]
Identify the prior-art event
The statute addresses patents, printed publications, public use, sales, other public availability, and specified earlier-filed patent disclosures. A public presentation or commercial activity can matter even without a competing issued patent. The exact claim and date of the disclosure must be compared.
The one-year exception is limited
Section 102(b) contains exceptions for specified inventor-originated or derived disclosures and other circumstances. It is not a general one-year safe period for every disclosure by anyone. Foreign patent rules can differ, making a planned public release important to review before disclosure. [1]
Priority must be validly established
A claimed earlier filing date depends on the applicable priority or benefit requirements and support for the claimed subject matter. Section 119 addresses specified foreign-priority situations. Writing an early date on an application does not establish entitlement to it. [2]
For example, a provisional application helps only to the extent the relevant claim is adequately supported and the later filing satisfies the governing requirements.
Build a disclosure timeline
List filings, publications, offers, demonstrations, third-party disclosures, and the source of each disclosure. Preserve dated copies and confidentiality terms.
Check whether the modern framework governs
Older applications and transition cases can involve pre-AIA rules, so the complete filing history matters. Do not apply the modern effective-filing-date rule solely because the examination occurs today. Determine the claims’ relevant support and priority rather than assuming every claim receives the earliest date listed on the cover. [1] [2]
Also keep anticipation distinct from obviousness. A claim may face an obviousness issue even when a reviewer has not identified one earlier disclosure identical to the claim. Section 103 supplies that separate inquiry. [3] A practical prior-art chart should identify the claim limitation, reference, disclosure date, and asserted legal relevance. That is more useful than a pile of search results or an unsupported claim that nobody marketed the exact product. Commercial novelty and statutory patentability are related but not interchangeable concepts.
See correct inventorship and applicants and regulated offering communications before assuming ownership or confidentiality labels eliminate a publication’s legal consequences.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.