37 CFR § 1.69 — Foreign language oaths and (MPEP Coverage Index) – BlueIron IP

This page consolidates MPEP guidance interpreting 37 CFR § 1.69, including 73 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 guidance covers the proper execution of foreign language oaths in patent disclosures and evaluates materiality from a foreign language perspective.

What this section covers

Define what this section covers at a high level, including the use of foreign language oaths in patent applications.
Identify the core topic and scope of guidance in this section, focusing on the evaluation of materiality from a foreign language perspective.

Key obligations

State the primary requirement practitioners must satisfy, which is to ensure that foreign language oaths are properly executed and comply with the duty of disclosure.
State an additional required element or condition if applicable, such as evaluating the materiality of prior art from a foreign language perspective.
State a key compliance obligation tied to authority (USC/CFR), emphasizing the importance of adhering to 37 CFR 1.69.

Practice notes

Give a practical drafting or filing tip grounded in this section, such as ensuring that all foreign language oaths are accurately translated and notarized.
Call out a common pitfall or best practice relevant to this section, such as the importance of thoroughly assessing the materiality of foreign language prior art.

Oath Must Be In Understandable LanguageMPEP 2004Prohibited
Oath Requirement for Foreign Language DeclarationsMPEP 2004
Foreign Attorneys Must Meet U.S. Conduct StandardsMPEP 2004Required
Watch Out for Pre-AIA Prior Art Under 102(f) and (g)MPEP 2004
Prior Invention Evidence Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) Applies to 103MPEP 2004Permitted
AIA Application Claims Pre-2013 Filing DatesMPEP 2004
Duty of Disclosure for All IndividualsMPEP 2004
Recording of Discarded InformationMPEP 2004
Notes on Evaluation Can Explain MistakesMPEP 2004Required
Relevant FDA Submissions Must Be Reviewed by ExaminerMPEP 2004Recommended
Submissions to FDA May Be Material for Patent ProsecutionMPEP 2004Permitted
Documentation Submitted to FDA Must Be Reviewed for Patent ProsecutionMPEP 2004
Application Must Be in English or TranslatedMPEP 2414.04Required
Oath Must Be In Understandable LanguageMPEP 602.06Prohibited
Translation Requirement for Non-English Oaths and DeclarationsMPEP 602.06Required
Oath or Declaration Must Be Understood By IndividualMPEP 602.06
Oath or Declaration Preferably in English if ComprehendedMPEP 602.06Recommended
Oath Must Be In Comprehensible LanguageMPEP 602.06Prohibited
Oath Must Include Understanding StatementMPEP 602.06Required
Documents Must Be Explained If Language Barriers ExistMPEP 602.06Prohibited

Foreign Attorneys Must Meet U.S. Conduct StandardsMPEP 2004Required
Notes on Evaluation Can Explain MistakesMPEP 2004Required
Application Must Be in English or TranslatedMPEP 2414.04Required
Translation Requirement for Non-English Oaths and DeclarationsMPEP 602.06Required
Oath Must Include Understanding StatementMPEP 602.06Required

Oath/Declaration Requirement for Inventors, Especially Foreign OnesMPEP 2004
Evaluate Materiality of Closest Prior ArtMPEP 2004Permitted
Withheld Reference May Be Highly Material If Discloses More Complete Combination of FeaturesMPEP 2004Permitted
Submission of Less Close Prior Art Required Under 37 CFR 1.56MPEP 2004Permitted
Properly Describe Cited InformationMPEP 2004Recommended
Review of Specification Required Before FilingMPEP 2004
Requirement for Proper Description of Foreign ReferencesMPEP 2004
Proper Description of Foreign References During ProsecutionMPEP 2004
Untranslated Japanese Reference Must Not Misdirect ExaminerMPEP 2004
untranslated portions of foreign references must be disclosedMPEP 2004
Patentee Must Understand Materiality of Foreign ReferenceMPEP 2004
Duty of Candor Does Not Require Full TranslationMPEP 2004
Patentee Must Disclose All Relevant Prior ArtMPEP 2004
Duty of Disclosure Must Be Complied WithMPEP 2004
Accuracy of Experimental Results Must Be EnsuredMPEP 2004Recommended
Misrepresentation of Experimental Results ProhibitedMPEP 2004
Specification Must Accurately Describe Results AchievedMPEP 2004
Claims Must Accurately Represent Achieved ResultsMPEP 2004Recommended
Prophetic Examples Must Use Present TenseMPEP 2004Recommended
Specification Must Accurately Report ExperimentsMPEP 2004Permitted
Specification Must Not Misrepresent Experimental ResultsMPEP 2004
Misrepresentations in Declarations to the Office Are ProhibitedMPEP 2004Permitted
False Statements in Declarations ProhibitedMPEP 2004
Proper Tense for Experimental Results in Patent ApplicationMPEP 2004Permitted
Prophetic Examples Must Be SeparatedMPEP 2004Prohibited
Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in Patent ApplicationMPEP 2004
Notify Examiner of Copending ApplicationsMPEP 2004
Copending Application Material to PatentabilityMPEP 2004Prohibited
Notify Examiner of Related ApplicationsMPEP 2004
Examiner Lapse Does Not Excuse ApplicantMPEP 2004
Copending Applications Must Be Cited to ExaminerMPEP 2004
Copending Applications Must Be Cited to ExaminerMPEP 2004
When In Doubt, Submit InformationMPEP 2004
Information Submission RequirementMPEP 2004Permitted
Examiner Determines Relevancy in Close CasesMPEP 2004Recommended
Material Information About Prior Uses and Sales Must Be DisclosedMPEP 2004Permitted
Prior Uses and Sales Must Be DisclosedMPEP 2004
Material Information Must Be Promptly DisclosedMPEP 2004
Disclosure of Prior Art Early In ProsecutionMPEP 2004Recommended
Potentially Material Information Must Be Promptly SubmittedMPEP 2004Recommended
Issue Fee Payment Is Not Excuse for Late Information SubmissionMPEP 2004
Material Information Must Be Promptly DisclosedMPEP 2004
Avoid Long Lists of DocumentsMPEP 2004Permitted
Eliminate Irrelevant and Marginal Information in SubmissionsMPEP 2004
Highlight Important Documents If Long List SubmittedMPEP 2004
Limit Long Lists of DocumentsMPEP 2004
Highlight Significant Documents In Long ListsMPEP 2004
Material Information for CIP ApplicationsMPEP 2004Permitted
Material Information from CIP Applications RequiredMPEP 2004
Prior Art Under 102(f) Applies to 103MPEP 2004Permitted
Prior Art Under 102(f) Applies to 103MPEP 2004
Ownership of Prior Art Disqualifies ObviousnessMPEP 2004
Pre-AIA 102(e)/103 Prior Art Disqualified for Post-November 29, 1999 ApplicationsMPEP 2004

MPEP Section	Rules
MPEP § 2004	Oath/Declaration Requirement for Inventors, Especially Foreign OnesMPEP 2004 Oath Must Be In Understandable LanguageMPEP 2004Prohibited Oath Requirement for Foreign Language DeclarationsMPEP 2004 Evaluate Materiality of Closest Prior ArtMPEP 2004Permitted Withheld Reference May Be Highly Material If Discloses More Complete Combination of FeaturesMPEP 2004Permitted Submission of Less Close Prior Art Required Under 37 CFR 1.56MPEP 2004Permitted Properly Describe Cited InformationMPEP 2004Recommended Review of Specification Required Before FilingMPEP 2004 Requirement for Proper Description of Foreign ReferencesMPEP 2004 Proper Description of Foreign References During ProsecutionMPEP 2004 Untranslated Japanese Reference Must Not Misdirect ExaminerMPEP 2004 untranslated portions of foreign references must be disclosedMPEP 2004 Patentee Must Understand Materiality of Foreign ReferenceMPEP 2004 Duty of Candor Does Not Require Full TranslationMPEP 2004 Patentee Must Disclose All Relevant Prior ArtMPEP 2004 Duty of Disclosure Must Be Complied WithMPEP 2004 Foreign Attorneys Must Meet U.S. Conduct StandardsMPEP 2004Required Accuracy of Experimental Results Must Be EnsuredMPEP 2004Recommended Misrepresentation of Experimental Results ProhibitedMPEP 2004 Specification Must Accurately Describe Results AchievedMPEP 2004 Claims Must Accurately Represent Achieved ResultsMPEP 2004Recommended Prophetic Examples Must Use Present TenseMPEP 2004Recommended Specification Must Accurately Report ExperimentsMPEP 2004Permitted Specification Must Not Misrepresent Experimental ResultsMPEP 2004 Misrepresentations in Declarations to the Office Are ProhibitedMPEP 2004Permitted False Statements in Declarations ProhibitedMPEP 2004 Proper Tense for Experimental Results in Patent ApplicationMPEP 2004Permitted Prophetic Examples Must Be SeparatedMPEP 2004Prohibited Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in Patent ApplicationMPEP 2004 Notify Examiner of Copending ApplicationsMPEP 2004 Copending Application Material to PatentabilityMPEP 2004Prohibited Notify Examiner of Related ApplicationsMPEP 2004 Examiner Lapse Does Not Excuse ApplicantMPEP 2004 Copending Applications Must Be Cited to ExaminerMPEP 2004 Copending Applications Must Be Cited to ExaminerMPEP 2004 When In Doubt, Submit InformationMPEP 2004 Information Submission RequirementMPEP 2004Permitted Examiner Determines Relevancy in Close CasesMPEP 2004Recommended Material Information About Prior Uses and Sales Must Be DisclosedMPEP 2004Permitted Prior Uses and Sales Must Be DisclosedMPEP 2004 Material Information Must Be Promptly DisclosedMPEP 2004 Disclosure of Prior Art Early In ProsecutionMPEP 2004Recommended Potentially Material Information Must Be Promptly SubmittedMPEP 2004Recommended Issue Fee Payment Is Not Excuse for Late Information SubmissionMPEP 2004 Material Information Must Be Promptly DisclosedMPEP 2004 Avoid Long Lists of DocumentsMPEP 2004Permitted Eliminate Irrelevant and Marginal Information in SubmissionsMPEP 2004 Highlight Important Documents If Long List SubmittedMPEP 2004 Limit Long Lists of DocumentsMPEP 2004 Highlight Significant Documents In Long ListsMPEP 2004 Material Information for CIP ApplicationsMPEP 2004Permitted Material Information from CIP Applications RequiredMPEP 2004 Watch Out for Pre-AIA Prior Art Under 102(f) and (g)MPEP 2004 Prior Art Under 102(f) Applies to 103MPEP 2004Permitted Prior Art Under 102(f) Applies to 103MPEP 2004 Prior Invention Evidence Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) Applies to 103MPEP 2004Permitted AIA Application Claims Pre-2013 Filing DatesMPEP 2004 Ownership of Prior Art Disqualifies ObviousnessMPEP 2004 Pre-AIA 102(e)/103 Prior Art Disqualified for Post-November 29, 1999 ApplicationsMPEP 2004 Duty of Disclosure for All IndividualsMPEP 2004 Recording of Discarded InformationMPEP 2004 Notes on Evaluation Can Explain MistakesMPEP 2004Required Relevant FDA Submissions Must Be Reviewed by ExaminerMPEP 2004Recommended Submissions to FDA May Be Material for Patent ProsecutionMPEP 2004Permitted Documentation Submitted to FDA Must Be Reviewed for Patent ProsecutionMPEP 2004
MPEP § 2414.04	Application Must Be in English or TranslatedMPEP 2414.04Required
MPEP § 602.06	Oath Must Be In Understandable LanguageMPEP 602.06Prohibited Translation Requirement for Non-English Oaths and DeclarationsMPEP 602.06Required Oath or Declaration Must Be Understood By IndividualMPEP 602.06 Oath or Declaration Preferably in English if ComprehendedMPEP 602.06Recommended Oath Must Be In Comprehensible LanguageMPEP 602.06Prohibited Oath Must Include Understanding StatementMPEP 602.06Required Documents Must Be Explained If Language Barriers ExistMPEP 602.06Prohibited

Related Provisions

Based on MPEP Last Modified: 10/30/2024 08:50:22

37 CFR § 1.69 — Foreign language oaths and (MPEP Coverage Index) – BlueIron IP

37 CFR § 1.69 Foreign language oaths and

Summary

Official MPEP § 1.69 — Foreign language oaths and

1.69 Foreign language oaths and declarations.

Verbatim in MPEP

Required Actions

Key Interpretations

Topics

MPEP Coverage

Related Provisions