MPEP § 716 — Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections (Annotated Rules)
§716 Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 716, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections
This section addresses Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.132.
Key Rules
Responding to 101 Rejections
4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has been overcome, including the statutory grounds, e.g.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. 101; inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has not been overcome, including the statutory grounds, i.e.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility and/or inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Form Paragraphs
Examiner form paragraphs are standard language that you might see in an Office Action or communication from the USPTO. Examiners have latitude to change the form paragraphs, but you will often see this exact language.
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4] .
- Primary Examiner Must Review Evidence to Overcome Rejection
- Publications May Serve as Evidence for Facts at Issue
- Declaration Can Replace Affidavit in Patent Applications
- Declaration Must Acknowledge False Statements
- Declaration Must Acknowledge Truthfulness of Statements
- Oath or Declaration Required for Traversing Rejections
- Affidavits Must Be Made Under Oath
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4] as set forth in the last Office action because:
- Declaration Can Replace Affidavit in Patent Applications
- Declaration Must Acknowledge False Statements
- Declaration Must Acknowledge Truthfulness of Statements
- Primary Examiner Must Review Evidence to Overcome Rejection
- Publications May Serve as Evidence for Facts at Issue
- Oath or Declaration Required for Traversing Rejections
- Affidavits Must Be Made Under Oath
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Responding to 101 Rejections | 35 U.S.C. § 101 |
| Responding to 101 Rejections | 35 U.S.C. § 103 |
| Responding to 101 Rejections | 35 U.S.C. § 112 |
| Responding to 101 Rejections | 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.132 |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.68 |
| – | MPEP § 602 |
| Responding to 101 Rejections | MPEP § 716 |
| – | MPEP § 716.01 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.65 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.66 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 716 — Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections
Source: USPTO716 Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections [R-07.2022]
37 CFR 1.132 Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections.
When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.
It is the responsibility of the primary examiner to personally review and decide whether affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 and other evidence submitted for the purpose of traversing grounds of rejection are responsive to the rejection and present sufficient facts to overcome the rejection. Publications may be evidence of the facts at issue and should be considered to the extent that they are probative and properly submitted. See MPEP § 716.01et seq.
This rule sets forth the general policy of the Office consistently followed for a long period of time of receiving affidavit evidence traversing rejections or objections. All affidavits or declarations presented which do not fall within or under other specific rules are to be treated or considered as falling under this rule.
An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See MPEP § 602et seq. for additional information regarding formal requirements of affidavits.
37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Form paragraph 7.65 or 7.66 and any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 through 7.66.05, as appropriate, should be used to comment on a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration.
¶ 7.65 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Effective To Withdraw Rejection
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4].
Examiner Note:
- 1. In bracket 1, insert either –affidavit– or –declaration–.
- 2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
- 3. In bracket 3, insert the affected claim or claims.
- 4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has been overcome, including the statutory grounds, e.g.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. 101; inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
¶ 7.66 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Insufficient
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4] as set forth in the last Office action because:
Examiner Note:
- 1. In bracket 1, insert either –affidavit– or –declaration–.
- 2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
- 3. In bracket 3, insert the claim or claims affected.
- 4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has not been overcome, including the statutory grounds, i.e.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility and/or inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
- 5. Following this form paragraph, set forth the reasons for the insufficiency; e.g., categories include: –untimely–; –fails to set forth facts–; –facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue–;–showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims–; etc. See MPEP § 716. Also include a detailed explanation of the reasons why the affidavit or declaration is insufficient. Any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 – 7.66.05 may be used, as appropriate.
¶ 7.66.01 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Affiant Has Never Seen Invention Before
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
- 2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.02 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Invention Works as Intended
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
- 2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.03 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Refers Only to Invention, Not to Claims
It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
- 2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.04 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: No Evidence of Long-Felt Need
It states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
- 2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.05 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should be presented as a conclusion to your explanation of why the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 is insufficient, and it must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.