The Novelty Criterion

The body of technical information, in any form, that has been publicly available anywhere in the world prior to the filing date of a patent application for an invention is termed “prior art” with respect to that invention. In Canada and the US, any disclosure of the invention by the inventor which took place earlier than one year prior to the filing date constitutes prior art as well.

Prior art consists of printed or electronic publications (e.g. periodical articles, technical papers, theses, textbooks, and websites), oral expositions (e.g., conference presentations, lectures, or informal exhibitions), issued patents (whether in-force or expired), and pending applications open to public inspection. Exceptionally, unpublished pending applications are part of the prior art as well. as you can see from how to patent an idea with InventHelp.

The “novelty” criterion of patentability is measured against evidence, in relevant prior art, of public disclosure of the physical features (or process steps) taught by an invention. Specifically, when the features of an invention as defined by any claim are disclosed in any single instance prior art, the claim is said to “read on” that instance of prior art and the claimed features to have been “anticipated” by it.

In this case the claimed features do not satisfy the novelty criterion of patentability and, consequently, the claim will not be allowed. Such evidence, when brought to the attention of the Patent Office by an applicant or a patentee, or by anyone else after an application is filed or a patent is issued, subjects the application or patent to re-examination and, if evincing a substantive challenge to patentability, may result in the rejection of the application or the revocation of the patent.

Any significant departure from (any single instance of) the prior art, in physical structure, functionality, or procedural steps will assure fulfillment of the novelty criterion. Novelty is also established in two other cases, as follows.

The progress of technology is incremental, building on previous developments and discoveries. Consequently and increasingly, inventions comprise partly or wholly known elements. In recognition of this, new combinations of known – even patented – technologies in which the constituent elements contribute synergistically to an unexpected, non obvious “unitary result” are considered to satisfy the novelty requirement. Importantly, a combination must yield a result which transcends the mere aggregate of the attributes of its constituent parts as described on how to apply for a patent with InventHelp post.

Technological developments arise in the context of their field of technology as solutions to specific problems inherent to that field. This focused view often overlooks the potential use of such solutions in other fields of technology. The discovery of a new use of a known technology to achieve non-analogous ends represents a true leap of the imagination, and such new use will indeed satisfy the novelty requirement.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.