Section 34(1): Subject to this section, no person resident in Singapore shall, without written authority granted by the Registrar, file or cause to be filed outside Singapore an application for a patent for an invention unless:
 
(a) an application for a patent for the same invention has been filed in the Registry not less than 2 months before the application outside Singapore; and
 
(b) no directions have been given under section 33 in relation to the application in Singapore or all such directions have been revoked.

Section 34(3): Any person who files or causes to be filed an application for the grant of a patent in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

Provisional Application for Patent

 Provisional Application for Patent brochure [PDF - 140 KB] 

---

General questions about patents and trademarks?

Go to: USPTO Contact Center 

Telephone:
800-786-9199

E-mail:usptoinfo@
uspto.gov 

PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT

FEBRUARY 2011

BACKGROUND
Since June 8, 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has offered inventors the option of filing a provisional application for patent which was designed to provide a lower-cost first patent filing in the United States and to give U.S. applicants parity with foreign applicants under the GATT Uruguay Round Agreements.

A provisional application for patent is a U.S. national application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. §111(b). It allows filing without a formal patent claim, oath or declaration, or any information disclosure (prior art) statement. It provides the means to establish an early effective filing date in a later filed non-provisional patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a). It also allows the term “Patent Pending” to be applied in connection with the description of the invention.

A provisional application for patent (provisional application) has a pendency lasting 12 months from the date the provisional application is filed. The 12-month pendency period cannot be extended. Therefore, an applicant who files a provisional application must file a corresponding non-provisional application for patent (non-provisional application) during the 12-month pendency period of the provisional application in order to benefit from the earlier filing of the provisional application. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §119(e), the corresponding non-provisional application must contain or be amended to contain a specific reference to the provisional application.

Once a provisional application is filed, an alternative to filing a corresponding non-provisional application is to convert the provisional application to a non-provisional application by filing a grantable petition under 37 C.F.R. §1.53(c)(3) requesting such a conversion within 12 months of the provisional application filing date.

However, converting a provisional application into a non-provisional application (versus filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application) will have a negative impact on patent term. The term of a patent issuing from a nonprovisional application resulting from the conversion of a provisional application will be measured from the original filing date of the provisional application.

By filing a provisional application first, and then filing a corresponding non-provisional application that references the provisional application within the 12-month provisional application pendency period, a patent term endpoint may be extended by as much as 12 months.


.

EPO - Validation

Validation

Once the mention of the grant is published, the patent has to be validated in each of the designated states within a specific time limit to retain its protective effect and be enforceable against infringers. In a number of contracting states, the patent owner may have to file a translation of the specification in an official language of the national patent office. Depending on the relevant national law, the applicant may also have to pay fees by a certain date.

http://www.epo.org/applying/basics.html

http://www.inovia.com/resources/inovia-European-Validation-Handbook.pdf

.

Patenting may not be helpful if it cannot be detected for enforceability.

Patent Revocation

Revocation 

Any party, on application to the Registrar, may seek to revoke a patent on grounds including the following:

• the invention is not a patentable invention;
• the patent was granted to a person who is not entitled to the grant;
• the specification does not disclose the invention clearly and completely for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art;
• the matter disclosed in the specification extends beyond that disclosed in the patent application as filed;
• the amendment or correction to patent application or patent should not have been allowed;
• the non-disclosure/inaccurate disclosure of prescribed material information;
• the patent was obtained on any misrepresentation;
• the patent was obtained fraudulently;
• the patent is one of two or more patents for the same invention having the same priority date and filed by the same party or his successor in title.

Patent Claim consideration

Novelties and Inventive step of the invention are necessarily, and sufficiently manifested and accurately described.

The novelties and the invention step described in claim 1, the main claim is to be relentlessly reinforced and further deliberated in the subsequent dependent claims from claim 2 to claim xx or any other dependent claims that the patent attorney deem fit.

What is NOT Patentable?

An invention is only patentable if it is Novel, Useful and Not Obvious. 

Additionally, it must be adequately described or otherwise enabled in a patent application, and claimed by the inventor in a patent application in clear and definite terms.

The Supreme Court has stated that anything under the sun that is made by humans with the exception of; laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas, and humans themselves, fall within the patentable realm. So, what does that specifically exclude?
Mental Processes and Mathematical Algorithms or formulas

A purely mental process is not patentable. A process claim reciting an algorithm or abstract idea is patentable only if it is embodied in, operates on, transforms, or otherwise involves another class of statutory subject matter, i.e., a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Mental processes standing alone are not patentable, even if they have a real world application.

Court opinions define that a process is eligible for patent protection if:

(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or

(2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

Thus, Isaac Newton could not have received a patent for discovery the connection between force and mass (one of those equations you learned in basic physics, F = ma). However, you might be able to patent an application of a mathematical formula or a law of nature, IF it otherwise meets the patent requirements.

Arrangements of printed matter

Printed matter may be part of a patentable invention such as; a printed label on a mattress telling how to turn it to ensure even wear, or dictionary index tabs that guide you to the desired word more rapidly, but if the “invention” is just words, copyright protection is more appropriate.

Naturally occurring things

Unaltered, things that naturally occur in nature are not “inventions” in and of themselves. While you cannot patent naturally occurring things, you can patent something made from natural things. For example, while you could not patent the leaves of different plants, you could patent a pharmaceutical made out of those leaves (as well as the process of making it). Additionally, you can alter nature to create a Plant that could not naturally occur (Generally, when applying for a plant patent; the plant must be asexually reproduced; and the plant must be a new variety). As with all patent categories, there may be some grey area here. 

Take for example US5443036: Method of exercising a cat. wherin “A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a laser beam of light onto the floor, wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.” Is this a “NATURAL” response by the cat, or something created by the invention?

Scientific principles
While a device or method which operates based on a new scientific principle can be patented, but the underlying principle cannot. Further more, the principle must be able to produce a working model. Proposals for inoperable machines such as perpetual motion have become so common that the (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.

Business Method Patents
Business Method Patents have been the root of much controversy of late and will be the topic of an upcoming post.

Additionally
Inventions solely useful in making atomic weapons are not patentable.
Inventions that are offensive to public morality are not patentable.
Human beings are not patentable.

At least not yet…

Finally, you cannot patent a simple idea or suggestion. Rather, the invention must be something real and concrete. So while you can patent a machine, you can not obtain a patent simply for the idea of some machine.

[ By AUDREY | Published: September 17, 2009 ]

Inventive step and Non-obviousness

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive — i.e., non-obvious — in order to be patented.

The expression "inventive step" is predominantly used for instance in Germany, in the United Kingdom and under the European Patent Convention (EPC), while the expression "non-obviousness" is predominantly used in United States patent law. Although the basic principle is roughly the same, the assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another.

Patent Revocation

Grounds of Revocation

• The ground of revocation of the patent in Singapore is spelled out under Section 80 (1) of the Patents Act, where any person can apply to revoke patents on (among other things) the following grounds: The invention is not a patentable patent, i.e. the patent lacks novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability;

• The patent was granted to a person not entitled to be granted that patent; 

• The specification of the patent does not disclose the invention clearly and completely for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art; 

• The matter disclosed in the specification of the granted patent is broader than that disclosed and filed in the patent application; 

• The protection conferred by the patent has been extended by an amendment which should not have been allowed; 

• The patent was fraudulently obtained or obtained under a misrepresentation; or 

• The applicant failed to inform the Registrar of the details of corresponding international applications or provided false information. 

Further, the Registrar of IPOS, on his own initiative by order, has the power to revoke a patent if the subject matter invention of the said patent forms part of the state of the art by virtue of:

• being disclosed in another patent as filed and published; or 

• having an earlier priority date in another patent as filed and published. 

In this instance as provided in Section 81 of the Patents Act, it is the duty of the Registrar to provide the patentee an opportunity of making any observation and/or amending the specification of the patent to exclude subject matter that forms part of the state of the art.

It has to be noted that since the patent registration system in Singapore is largely a self-assessing system and a patent applicant will not be prevented from paying the grant fee even if the examination report is unfavourable, patents granted may be weak, and may be vulnerable to revocation. Therefore, it would be prudent for applicants to consider Examiner's report, and to take corrective steps to amend the claims if the report is adverse, in order to obtain a fairly strong patent against revocation.