Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20070271363
Collaborate on the process of community review for this application. Posting will not be forwarded to the USPTO.
Flagging a post as an ACTION ITEM signals further research. Flagging SPAM and ABUSE helps to manage discussion.
Placing double brackets around a reference to a claim or prior art will create a hyperlink to the original
ex. [[claim 1]] and [[prior art 2]].
Facilitator's Comment 
Action Item Show without Noise
3
William Stock (8 months ago)
We apologize for this problem. Yes, the system should allow for any qualifying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 to be submitted. We are going to change the prior art submission field asking for the "publication date" to something that more accurately reflects the prior art date for patents, patent applications and non-patents. For now, if you are submitting a patent or published patent application, in the publication date field put the 102(e) date, which in most cases is the "earliest US filing date" for the application. If you don't know what that means simply put the "Filing Date" of the patent or published application into the "publication date" field instead of the actual publication date. Please note, until this problem is fixed, if you believe the item is prior art its better to put in a date which allows the item to be submitted rather than not submitting the item. Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention and we will get this problem fixed ASAP. Peer-to-Patent Team.2
Sandeep Sharma (10 months ago)
The submitted prior art US 20070171842 has a publication date (July 26, 2007) after the filing date (May 19, 2006) of the '363 application. Peer-to-patent does not accept such prior art, which has been published after the filing date of applications posted on it for review. In this case, the prior art has been accepted because you have entered the filing date of the prior art in the publication date drop-down. Further, it has been submitted as a patent, and not as a patent application. However, in case the art is relevant, such art may be considered as prior art under 102(e), and should be posted on the discussion forum for the patent application. 1
Sandeep Sharma (10 months ago)
US20060070129 seems to be a relevant prior art for this case. I am not able to upload the prior art (including relevance to claims) as this website is not letting me do that. I will upload the prior art with relevant excerpts from the reference soon. 
