Is the mode of disclosure important in 37 CFR 1.130(b) declarations?

No, the mode or manner of disclosure is not critical when submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b). The MPEP clearly states: There is no requirement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) that the mode of disclosure 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 (e.g., patenting, publication, public use, sale activity) be the same as the mode of disclosure of the intervening grace period disclosure.

Furthermore, the MPEP elaborates: The manner of disclosure of subject matter referenced in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is not critical. Just as the prior art provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) encompasses any disclosure that renders a claimed invention available to the public, any manner of disclosure may be evidenced in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).

This means that the inventor’s prior disclosure and the intervening disclosure do not need to be in the same format or use identical wording. What matters is that the subject matter is the same, regardless of how it was disclosed.

To learn more:

• 37 CFR 1.130(b)
• mode of disclosure
• manner of disclosure
• prior public disclosure

To learn more:

• 37 CFR 1.130(b)