上期聊了AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (1) (A)规定的现有技术的例外，这期接着聊针对AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) 美国专利法现有技术例外（一）提出的另一现有技术的例外的法条，即AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (1) (B)。

01现有技术的例外

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—

(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION. —A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—

(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS. —A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—

(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

法条102 (b) (1) (B)主要涉及在宽限期内多次披露的问题。具体而言，就是在宽限期内，且在后续披露作出之前，该后续披露的主题已经被发明人或共同发明人作出过披露、或是由其他人直接或间接的从发明人或共同发明人处获得相应主题后作出过披露，那么该后续披露也属于现有技术的例外，不能作为AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)规定的现有技术来使用。

在MPEP § 2153.02对法条102 (b) (1) (B)的解释中有提到：Finally, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) does not discuss “the claimed invention” with respect to either the subject matter disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter of the subsequent intervening grace period disclosure. The only inquiry with respect to the claimed invention is whether or not the subject matter in the prior art disclosure being relied upon anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention. A determination of whether the exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) is applicable to subject matter in an intervening grace period disclosure does not involve a comparison of the subject matter of the claimed invention to either the subject matter in the inventor-originated prior public disclosure, or to the subject matter of the subsequent intervening grace period disclosure.

根据解释可知，102 (b) (1) (B)规定的例外是否适用于宽限期内的后续披露，并不涉及将要求保护的发明的主题与发明人在先披露的主题或宽限期内后续披露的主题相比较。

通过解读MPEP § 2153.02中对法条102 (b) (1) (B)的解释，不难发现：首先，并不要求在先披露和后续披露的方式相同；其次，作出后续披露的人员也不做限制，可以是发明人或共同发明人自己作出的再次披露，也可以是其他与发明人或共同发明人无关的人员作出的后续披露；最后，发明人或共同发明人自己作出的在先披露也必须在宽限期内。若发明人或共同发明人自己作出的在先披露不在宽限期内，那该在先披露就属于AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)规定的现有技术了。

另外值得注意的是，若后续披露是在先披露的上位，则102 (b) (1) (B)规定的例外依然适用于后续披露，即该后续披露不能作为现有技术使用。相反，若是后续披露是在先披露的下位，则102 (b) (1) (B)规定的例外不再适用于后续披露，即该后续披露将可作为现有技术使用。

02事先公开披露宣誓书或声明

同样，在MPEP § 2155.02中有提到，申请人可以根据37 CFR 1.130 (b)使用事先公开披露宣誓书或声明，将在宽限期内的后续披露排除在现有技术之外。该宣誓书或声明应明确公开披露的主题，以及在先披露的日期和内容。具体可通过以下例子来进一步理解。

Example 1

2021年5月18日，Acme公司的提交了一份要求保护主题X美国专利申请，由Maria根据37 CFR 1.63签署的发明人宣誓书或声明与该申请一起提交。审查员发现了一篇由Keiko撰写的期刊文章，其发表于2021年3月16日，并公开了相同的主题X。审查员依据35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) 驳回了Acme公司对主题X所主张的权利要求。在驳回时，审查员没有关于Maria先前公开披露的信息。

作为回应，Acme公司提交了一份由Maria签署的37 CFR 1.130 (b)声明，声称她在2020年6月7日的虚拟会议上披露了X，早于Keiko在期刊文章中披露X的公开日期。声明中还包括一份Maria在虚拟会议上的演示幻灯片。

审查员应撤回驳回决定，因为记录证据证明Maria事先公开披露了Keiko的期刊文章中的相同主题X。

03建议

在实务工作中，若找到的对比文件公开日期在目标专利或专利申请的有效申请日之前1年内，除了需要考虑该对比文件是否属于102 (b) (1) (A)规定的现有技术的例外，还需要进一步考虑该对比文件是否属于102 (b) (1) (B)规定的现有技术的例外，即从最早宽限期节点到对比文件公开日这段时间内，目标专利或专利申请的专利权人或专利申请人公开的文献中是否存在与该对比文件所披露的主题相同的文献，进而判断该对比文件是否可作为现有技术来使用。

下期接着聊美国专利法现有技术例外（三），关于AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (2)规定的现有技术的例外。