MPEP § 2301.01 — Statutory Basis (Annotated Rules)

§2301.01 Statutory Basis

USPTO MPEP version: BlueIron's Update: 2025-12-31

This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2301.01, 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.

Statutory Basis

This section addresses Statutory Basis. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 104, and 35 U.S.C. 135. Contains: 4 requirements, 4 prohibitions, and 2 other statements.

Key Rules

Topic

AIA vs Pre-AIA Practice

6 rules
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2301-01-14c0007b9983fc21ddbfba7e]
Requirement for Patent Eligibility Under Pre-AIA
Note:
A person must meet the conditions set by pre-AIA law to be eligible for a patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —

Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA PracticeNovelty / Prior Art
StatutoryProhibitedAlways
[mpep-2301-01-8f5e38138348157f0cba2caa]
Invention Date Not Establishable from Foreign Use Except NAFTA/WTO
Note:
An applicant cannot establish an invention date based on foreign use outside NAFTA and WTO countries, except under specific conditions.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
  • (1) PROCEEDINGS.—In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365 of this title.
  • (2) RIGHTS.—If an invention was made by a person, civil or military—
    • (A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,
    • (B) while domiciled in a NAFTA country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that NAFTA country, or
    • (C) while domiciled in a WTO member country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that WTO member country, that person shall be entitled to the same rights of priority in the United States with respect to such invention as if such invention had been made in the United States, that NAFTA country, or that WTO member country, as the case may be.
  • (3) USE OF INFORMATION.—To the extent that any information in a NAFTA country or a WTO member country concerning knowledge, use, or other activity relevant to proving or disproving a date of invention has not been made available for use in a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, a court, or any other competent authority to the same extent as such information could be made available in the United States, the Director, court, or such other authority shall draw appropriate inferences, or take other action permitted by statute, rule, or regulation, in favor of the party that requested the information in the proceeding.
Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA PracticeAssignee as Applicant SignatureApplicant and Assignee Filing Under AIA
StatutoryProhibitedAlways
[mpep-2301-01-c99332c61375d55678152a91]
Rights for Inventions Made While Serving Overseas
Note:
This rule outlines the rights for inventions created by U.S. personnel while they are domiciled in the United States but serving abroad as part of U.S. operations.

(a) IN GENERAL.—
(2) RIGHTS.—If an invention was made by a person, civil or military— (A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,

Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryProhibitedAlways
[mpep-2301-01-f06740e71f7f6036bfac9cb7]
Rights for Inventions Made by Civil or Military Personnel
Note:
This rule outlines the rights associated with inventions created by individuals, whether they are civil or military personnel.
(2) RIGHTS.—If an invention was made by a person, civil or military—
  • (A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,
  • (B) while domiciled in a NAFTA country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that NAFTA country, or
  • (C) while domiciled in a WTO member country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that WTO member country, that person shall be entitled to the same rights of priority in the United States with respect to such invention as if such invention had been made in the United States, that NAFTA country, or that WTO member country, as the case may be.
Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2301-01-4b58907cfd519e9f303d0c77]
Definitions of NAFTA Country and WTO Member Country
Note:
This rule defines the terms 'NAFTA country' and 'WTO member country' as used in this section, referencing their meanings from other acts.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—
  • (1) The term “NAFTA country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(4) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and
  • (2) The term “WTO member country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA PracticeAIA Overview and Effective Dates
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2301-01-3fc29c22345f7f00acd0de9a]
Definition of WTO Member Country
Note:
This rule defines the term 'WTO member country' as specified in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

(2) The term “WTO member country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Jump to MPEP SourceAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
Topic

Assignee as Applicant Signature

3 rules
StatutoryProhibitedAlways
[mpep-2301-01-a03f5ff5d0448b2f8c38943b]
Date of Invention Not Establishable from Foreign Use Outside NAFTA/WTO Countries
Note:
An applicant for a patent or a patentee cannot establish the date of invention based on knowledge, use, or other activities in a foreign country outside NAFTA and WTO member countries.

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) PROCEEDINGS.—In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365 of this title.

Jump to MPEP SourceAssignee as Applicant SignatureApplicant and Assignee Filing Under AIAAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2301-01-06845403b89c9c26c6913a00]
Interference May Be Declared When New Patent Application Interferes With Existing One
Note:
The Director may declare an interference if a new patent application is deemed to interfere with an existing pending or unexpired patent, and will notify the relevant parties.

(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Jump to MPEP SourceAssignee as Applicant SignatureApplicant and Assignee Filing Under AIAAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2301-01-4bc1dc29c4eeb2303c810442]
Final Refusal Constitutes Patent Office Decision
Note:
A final decision adverse to an applicant's claim constitutes the Patent and Trademark Office's final refusal of the claims, while a final judgment against a patentee without appeal results in cancellation of the patent claims.

(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Jump to MPEP SourceAssignee as Applicant SignatureApplicant and Assignee Filing Under AIAEstoppel After Judgment
Topic

PTAB Jurisdiction

1 rules
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2301-01-4bd56ced0a12ab2530aec581]
PTAB Determines Priority and Patentability
Note:
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decides on the priority of inventions and may assess their patentability.

(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice

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.

BlueIron Last Updated: 2025-12-31