Patent bar Novelty under the AIA (first inventor to file) question: status of Rival Corp.'s published application against Juno's claims

Patent barNovelty under the AIA (first inventor to file)

Applicant Juno filed a nonprovisional application on July 7, 2025, claiming a valve. Rival Corp. filed a U.S. application disclosing the same valve on February 3, 2025; it names different inventors and was published on August 6, 2026. Juno and Rival Corp. have never been related. Juno made no public disclosure before July 7, 2025. What is the status of Rival Corp.'s published application against Juno's claims?

A Prior art under 102(a)(2), effective as of February 3, 2025
B Prior art for obviousness, not anticipation, since it was not public when Juno filed
C Not prior art unless it issues as a patent before Juno's application is allowed
D Prior art under 102(a)(1), effective as of August 6, 2026
E Not prior art, because it was published after Juno's filing date

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: A. Prior art under 102(a)(2), effective as of February 3, 2025

Answer: Prior art under 102(a)(2), effective as of February 3, 2025. A U.S. patent application published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that names another inventor is prior art under 102(a)(2) if it was effectively filed before the claimed invention's effective filing date. Under 102(d) it is effectively filed on its filing date, February 3, 2025, which is before Juno's July 7, 2025 date, even though it published later (MPEP 2154.01(b)). Why not the others: - Not prior art because published later: 102(a)(2) looks to the effective filing date of the reference, not its publication date. - 102(a)(1) as of August 6, 2026: that date is after Juno's effective filing date, so the publication cannot be 102(a)(1) art. - Only for obviousness: 102(a)(2) art can anticipate as well as support obviousness. - Only once it issues: a published application is itself 102(a)(2) art; it need not issue. Rule: A published U.S. application naming another inventor is 102(a)(2) art as of its effective filing date. Source: MPEP § 2154.01, § 2154.01(b) (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), 102(d); as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Dating a U.S. patent document by its publication date instead of its effective filing date.

Practice more Patent bar Novelty under the AIA (first inventor to file) questions

Exam-style questions with worked answers, then full timed mocks. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Study note: Novelty under the AIA (first inventor to file)Patent barpractice questions & mock exams

Related Patent bar practice questions

Inventor Priya Raman, with two lab technicians, co-authored a journal article describing her new battery separator, published on May 6, 2025. She filed a U.S. nonprovisional application naming herself as sole inventor and claiming the separator on April 14, 2026, without any benefit or priority claim. The examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over the article. Which reply is most likely to overcome the rejection?Inventor Marco Silva published a paper disclosing compound X on January 10, 2026. On February 2, 2026, an unrelated researcher, who worked independently, published a paper disclosing the same compound X. Silva filed a nonprovisional application claiming compound X on June 1, 2026, with no benefit or priority claim. Which statement correctly describes the researcher's paper?A claim recites a mathematical formula for calculating the optimal cure time of rubber, and further recites constantly measuring mold temperature, recalculating the cure time with the formula, and automatically opening the press when the calculated time has elapsed. Under the USPTO's analysis, which conclusion is best supported?

Build a daily practice habit — a few exam-style questions a day, with worked answers. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Original study material written from the MPEP; not a question from the current exam.Independent. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO. Verify figures and rules against current guidance before relying on them.