Legal Definitions - Section 102 rejection

A Section 102 rejection occurs in patent law when an application for a patent is denied because the invention described is not considered "new" or "novel." This means that the invention, or something substantially similar to it, already existed in the public domain before the applicant invented it or filed their patent application. This prior existence, known as "prior art," could be in the form of an earlier patent, a published article, a product that was publicly used or sold, or other publicly available information.

Here are some examples illustrating a Section 102 rejection:

• Example 1: Prior Patent

  Imagine a company, "GreenTech Innovations," applies for a patent on a new type of solar panel that uses a unique coating to absorb more sunlight. During the patent examination process, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiner discovers an existing patent, filed five years earlier by "SunPower Solutions," that describes an identical solar panel coating technology. Because the core innovation of GreenTech's application was already patented and publicly disclosed by SunPower Solutions before GreenTech's invention date, the USPTO would issue a Section 102 rejection, stating that GreenTech's invention lacks novelty.

• Example 2: Prior Public Use or Sale

  An independent inventor, Sarah, develops a novel ergonomic computer mouse. Excited about her invention, she sells several prototypes at a local tech fair and allows attendees to extensively test them out, discussing the unique features openly, a year before she files her patent application. When Sarah later submits her patent application, the USPTO examiner finds evidence (e.g., sales receipts, testimonials from fair attendees) that her invention was publicly used and sold more than one year before her patent filing date. This public use and sale constitute prior art, leading to a Section 102 rejection because the invention was no longer new at the time of her application.

• Example 3: Prior Publication

  Dr. Chen, a university researcher, publishes a detailed scientific paper in a widely circulated academic journal describing a new method for purifying water using a specific chemical compound. Six months after the paper's publication, a startup company, "AquaClean," files a patent application for a water purification system that uses the exact same method and chemical compound described in Dr. Chen's paper. The patent examiner, upon reviewing prior art, finds Dr. Chen's published paper. Since the invention was fully disclosed in a public publication before AquaClean's patent filing, the application would face a Section 102 rejection due to lack of novelty.