37 CFR § 1.56 — Duty to disclose information material to (MPEP Coverage Index) – BlueIron IP
37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to
This page consolidates MPEP guidance interpreting 37 CFR § 1.56, including 324 rules 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.
Summary
The duty to disclose information material to patentability requires patent applicants to transparently provide all relevant information that could impact the examination and potential approval of their patent.
What this section covers
- Comprehensive disclosure requirements for patent applications across different types of information and sources.
- Identifying and categorizing the types of information that must be disclosed to the patent office.
Key obligations
- Disclose all known material information that could potentially affect patent examination and patentability.
- Mandatory disclosure requirements for inventors, assignees, and patent practitioners involved in the application process.
- Maintain a continuous obligation to disclose material information throughout the entire patent application process.
Conditions and exceptions
- Understanding the precise materiality standard for determining what information requires disclosure.
Practice notes
- Systematically document and track potentially material information to ensure comprehensive disclosure.
- Be aware of potential legal and procedural consequences for inadequate or incomplete disclosure.
Official MPEP § 1.56 — Duty to disclose information material to
Source: USPTOLast Modified: 10/30/2024 08:50:22
1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability.
[Editor Note: Para. (c)(3) below is applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012 *]
- (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a
public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most
effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an
application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates
the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each
individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent
application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the
Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all
information known to that individual to be material to
patentability as defined in this section. The duty to disclose
information exists with respect to each pending claim until the
claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the
application becomes abandoned. Information material to the
patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from
consideration need not be submitted if the information is not
material to the patentability of any claim remaining under
consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit
information which is not material to the patentability of any
existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to be
material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all
information known to be material to patentability of any claim
issued in a patent was cited by the Office or submitted to the
Office in the manner prescribed by §§
1.97(b)-(d)
and
1.98
. However, no patent will be granted on
an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was
practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated
through bad faith or intentional misconduct. The Office encourages
applicants to carefully examine:
- (1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and
- (2) The closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office.
- (b) Under this section, information is material to
patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of
record or being made of record in the application, and
- (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or
- (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a
position the applicant takes in:
- (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or
- (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.
A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.
- (c) Individuals associated with the filing or
prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this
section are:
- (1) Each inventor named in the application;
- (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and
- (3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.
- (d) Individuals other than the attorney, agent or inventor may comply with this section by disclosing information to the attorney, agent, or inventor.
- (e) In any continuation-in-part application, the duty under this section includes the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, which became available between the filing date of the prior application and the national or PCT international filing date of the continuation-in-part application.
[42 FR 5593, Jan. 28, 1977; paras. (d) & (e) – (i), 47 FR 21751, May 19, 1982, effective July 1, 1982; para. (c), 48 FR 2696, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983; paras. (b) and (j), 49 FR 554, Jan. 4, 1984, effective Apr. 1, 1984; paras. (d) and (h), 50 FR 5171, Feb. 6, 1985, effective Mar. 8, 1985; para. (e), 53 FR 47808, Nov. 28, 1988, effective Jan. 1, 1989; 57 FR 2021, Jan. 17, 1992, effective Mar. 16, 1992; para. (e) added, 65 FR 54604, Sept. 8, 2000, effective Nov. 7, 2000; para. (c)(3) revised, 77 FR 48776, Aug. 14, 2012, effective Sept. 16, 2012]
[ * The changes to para. (c)(3) effective Sept. 16, 2012 are applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after Sept. 16, 2012. See § 1.56 (pre‑AIA) for para. (c)(3) otherwise in effect.]
- Access Records
- Access Document Types
- Third Party Access
-
- Aia Practice
- Aia Overview
-
- Application Types
- Continuing Applications
- Continuation Applications
- Continuation Benefit
- Director Authority
- Common Petition Types
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ids Timing Windows
- Inequitable Conduct
-
- Reexamination Request
- Substantial New Question
- Examination Procedure
- Examiner Action
- Action Content
- Examiner Interviews
- Interview Summary
- Inter Partes Reexamination
- Inter Partes Reexam Request
- International Design
- Ida Requirements
- Ida Applicant
- Ida Contents
- Patent Application Content
- Patent Issuance
- Notice Of Allowance
- Examiner Amendment
- Patent Term
-
- Practitioner Recognition
-
- Protest
- Protest Filing
- Reissue
- Reissue Concurrent Proceedings
- Reissue Examination
- Search Requirements
-
- Rfi Basis
-
-
- Section 103
- Graham Factors
- Secondary Considerations
-
- Signature Assignee
- Signature Practitioner