[Editor Note: This MPEP section and the provisions of 37 CFR 1.131(a) are not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]

[Editor Note: This MPEP section and the provisions of 37 CFR 1.131(a) are not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]

Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 may be used to overcome rejections in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, and to overcome rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and current 35 U.S.C. 102, for example:

• (A) To antedate a reference or activity that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and not under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), e.g., where the prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of the patent, the publication or activity used to reject the claim(s) is less than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention. If the prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, the reference may not be antedated if it claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter.”
• (B) To antedate a reference that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference has a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, and shows but does not claim interfering subject matter. See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter.” See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03 for an explanation of what references qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
• (C) During examination, to antedate an activity that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and not under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), e.g., where the prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of the activity used to reject the claim(s) is less than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention. If the evidence of the activity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, the evidence may not be antedated if it claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of "interfering subject matter".

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:

• (A) Where the application is subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102 and the affidavit or declaration is not directed to evidence used in a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g).
• (B) Where the reference publication date is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention. Such a reference is a “statutory bar” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as referenced in 37 CFR 1.131(a)(2). A reference that only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) is not a “statutory bar.”
• (C) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of "interfering subject matter" and MPEP Chapter 2300. Where the reference patent and the application or patent under reexamination are commonly owned, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent are not identical but are not patentably distinct, a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.
• (D) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or their legal representatives or assigns issued prior to the filing date of the domestic application or patent on an application filed more than 12 months prior to the filing date of the domestic application. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
• (E) Where the effective filing date of applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention is prior to the effective date of the reference, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is unnecessary because the reference should not have been used. See MPEP §§ 211 – 216.
• (F) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims the same invention and the claimed invention under examination is subject to statutory double patenting. See MPEP § 804.
• (G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that the subject matter relied on in the rejection is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting the applicant's claims and may not be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 177 USPQ 170 (CCPA 1973); In re Garfinkel, 437 F.2d 1000, 168 USPQ 659 (CCPA 1971); In re Blout, 333 F.2d 928, 142 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1964); In re Lopresti, 333 F.2d 932, 142 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1964).
• (H) Where the subject matter relied upon is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
• (I) Where the subject matter corresponding to a lost count in an interference is either prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) or barred to applicant by the doctrine of interference estoppel. In re Bandel, 348 F.2d 563, 146 USPQ 389 (CCPA 1965); In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, applicant was not entitled to claims that were patentably indistinguishable from the claim lost in interference even though the subject matter of the lost count was not available for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103). But see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (A losing party to an interference, on showing that the invention now claimed is not “substantially the same” as that of the lost count, may employ the procedures of 37 CFR 1.131(a) to antedate the filing date of an interfering application). On the matter of when a “lost count” in an interference constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), see In re McKellin, 529 F.2d 1342, 188 USPQ 428 (CCPA 1976) (A count is not prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as to the loser of an interference where the count was lost based on the winner’s foreign priority date). Similarly, where one party in an interference wins a count by establishing a date of invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country (see pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104), the subject matter of that count is unpatentable to the other party by the doctrine of interference estoppel, even though it is not available as statutory prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP §§ 2138.01 and 2138.02.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations (A) Where the application is subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102 and the affidavit or declaration is not directed to evidence used in a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g).

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
But see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (A losing party to an interference, on showing that the invention now claimed is not “substantially the same” as that of the lost count, may employ the procedures of 37 CFR 1.131(a) to antedate the filing date of an interfering application).

(d) The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time:

• (1) A claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013; or
• (2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013.

Under 37 CFR 1.131(a) which provides for the establishment of a date of completion of the invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country, as well as in the United States, an applicant or patent owner can establish a date of completion in a NAFTA member country on or after December 8, 1993, the effective date of section 331 of Public Law 103-182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Act, and can establish a date of completion in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA member country on or after January 1, 1996, the effective date of section 531 of Public Law 103-465, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Acts occurring prior to the effective dates of NAFTA or URAA may be relied upon to show completion of the invention; however, a date of completion of the invention may not be established under 37 CFR 1.131(a) before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO country other than a NAFTA country, in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104.

If a country joined the WTO after January 1, 1996, the effective date for proving inventive activity in that country for the purpose of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 and 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the date the country becomes a member of the WTO. See MPEP § 213.01 for a list that includes WTO member countries.

See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03 for a detailed discussion of the effective date of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication of an international application as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

[Editor Note: This MPEP section and the provisions of 37 CFR 1.131(a) are not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]

Under 37 CFR 1.131(a) which provides for the establishment of a date of completion of the invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country, as well as in the United States, an applicant or patent owner can establish a date of completion in a NAFTA member country on or after December 8, 1993, the effective date of section 331 of Public Law 103-182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Act, and can establish a date of completion in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA member country on or after January 1, 1996, the effective date of section 531 of Public Law 103-465, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Acts occurring prior to the effective dates of NAFTA or URAA may be relied upon to show completion of the invention; however, a date of completion of the invention may not be established under 37 CFR 1.131(a) before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO country other than a NAFTA country, in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104.

(b) The showing of facts for an oath or declaration under paragraph (a) of this section shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application. Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained.

(b) The showing of facts for an oath or declaration under paragraph (a) of this section shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application. Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained.

(c) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013, on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as in effect on March 15, 2013, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:

• (1) A terminal disclaimer in accordance with § 1.321(c); and
• (2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013.

(c) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013, on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as in effect on March 15, 2013, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:
…
(2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013.

Any printed publication or activity dated prior to the effective filing date of applicant's or patent owner's claimed invention, or any domestic patent of prior filing date, which is in its disclosure pertinent to the claimed invention, is available for use by the examiner as a reference in the rejection of the claims of the application or patent under reexamination. In addition, patent application publications and certain international application publications having an effective prior art date prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention being examined may be used in a rejection of the claims. See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03.

Any printed publication or activity dated prior to the effective filing date of applicant's or patent owner's claimed invention, or any domestic patent of prior filing date, which is in its disclosure pertinent to the claimed invention, is available for use by the examiner as a reference in the rejection of the claims of the application or patent under reexamination. In addition, patent application publications and certain international application publications having an effective prior art date prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention being examined may be used in a rejection of the claims. See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
(C) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of "interfering subject matter" and MPEP Chapter 2300.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
(F) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims the same invention and the claimed invention under examination is subject to statutory double patenting. See MPEP § 804.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
(H) Where the subject matter relied upon is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
(I) Where the subject matter corresponding to a lost count in an interference is either prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) or barred to applicant by the doctrine of interference estoppel. In re Bandel, 348 F.2d 563, 146 USPQ 389 (CCPA 1965); In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, applicant was not entitled to claims that were patentably indistinguishable from the claim lost in interference even though the subject matter of the lost count was not available for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103).

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
On the matter of when a “lost count” in an interference constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), see In re McKellin, 529 F.2d 1342, 188 USPQ 428 (CCPA 1976) (A count is not prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as to the loser of an interference where the count was lost based on the winner’s foreign priority date).

(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified under § 1.42 or § 1.46, may submit an appropriate oath or declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based. The effective date of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication under PCT Article 21(2) is the earlier of its publication date or the date that it is effective as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in effect on March 15, 2013. Prior invention may not be established under this section in any country other than the United States, a NAFTA country, or a WTO member country. Prior invention may not be established under this section before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country other than the United States, or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA country. Prior invention may not be established under this section if either:

• (1) The rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a pending or patented application naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in § 41.203(a) of this chapter, in which case an applicant may suggest an interference pursuant to § 41.202(a) of this chapter; or
• (2) The rejection is based upon a statutory bar.

(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified under § 1.42 or § 1.46, may submit an appropriate oath or declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based. The effective date of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication under PCT Article 21(2) is the earlier of its publication date or the date that it is effective as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in effect on March 15, 2013. Prior invention may not be established under this section in any country other than the United States, a NAFTA country, or a WTO member country. Prior invention may not be established under this section before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country other than the United States, or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA country. Prior invention may not be established under this section if either:
…
(2) The rejection is based upon a statutory bar.

(e) In an application for patent to which the provisions of § 1.130 apply, and to any patent issuing thereon, the provisions of this section are applicable only with respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in effect on March 15, 2013.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
Where the reference patent and the application or patent under reexamination are commonly owned, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent are not identical but are not patentably distinct, a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
(D) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or their legal representatives or assigns issued prior to the filing date of the domestic application or patent on an application filed more than 12 months prior to the filing date of the domestic application.

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
…
Similarly, where one party in an interference wins a count by establishing a date of invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country (see pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104), the subject matter of that count is unpatentable to the other party by the doctrine of interference estoppel, even though it is not available as statutory prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP §§ 2138.01 and 2138.02.

The effective date of a domestic patent when used as a reference in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is not the foreign filing date to which the application for patent may have been entitled under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) during examination. In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, the date to be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the earlier of the actual filing date of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and the earliest claimed domestic benefit date that the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication is entitled to, but not the foreign priority date. When a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication reference claims the benefit of an earlier filed application, its effective date as a reference is determined under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03.

The effective date of a domestic patent when used as a reference in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is not the foreign filing date to which the application for patent may have been entitled under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) during examination. In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, the date to be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the earlier of the actual filing date of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and the earliest claimed domestic benefit date that the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication is entitled to, but not the foreign priority date. When a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication reference claims the benefit of an earlier filed application, its effective date as a reference is determined under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). See MPEP §§ 2136 – 2136.03.