Is there a requirement for the mode of disclosure to be the same in a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

No, there is no requirement for the mode of disclosure to be the same in a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration. 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.

This means that the original disclosure by the inventor and the intervening disclosure can be in different forms, such as a patent application, a printed publication, public use, or sale activity.