46. According to USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following can be overcome by an
affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131?
(A) A rejection properly based on statutory double patenting.
(B) A rejection properly made under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) based on a foreign patent
granted in a non-WTO country.
(C) A rejection properly made under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on a journal article
dated one month prior to the effective filing date of the U.S. patent application.
Applicant has clearly admitted on the record during the prosecution of the
application that subject matter in the journal article relied on by the examiner is
prior art.
(D) A rejection properly made under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on a U.S. patent that
issued 18 months before the effective filing date of the application. The patent
discloses, but does not claim, the invention.
(E) None of the above.
46. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. MPEP § 715. (A) is incorrect because an affidavit
under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same
entity, claiming the same invention. MPEP § 715. (B) and (D) are each incorrect because an
affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a statutory bar under 35
U.S.C. § 102(d) as in (B) or a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as in (D). MPEP § 715.
(C) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where applicant has
clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. MPEP
§ 715.
37 CFR1.131 is to overcome 102(e)? And the prior invention has to be in US, NAFTA, or WTO country.
1993 for NAFTA and 1996 for WTO, to establish an invention date
Generally, you can antedate a 102(a) or (e) reference, but you may not antedate a 102(a) reference if you have clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art.
And you can not antedate a Bar 102 (b) or 102(d) OR 102(e) double patenting rejection. This question is straight out of MPEP:
I. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS CAN BE USED
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 may be used, for example:
(A) To antedate a reference or activity that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and not under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), e.g., where the prior art date under 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 applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. >If the prior art reference under 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 the same patentable invention. See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “same patentable invention.” 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 1.130 may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.
(C) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or his or her 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 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
(D) Where the effective filing date of applicant's or patent owner's parent application or an International Convention proved filing date is prior to the effective date of the reference, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 is unnecessary because the reference should not have been used. See MPEP § 201.11 to § 201.15.
(E) Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention. The question involved is one of "double patenting."
(F) Where the reference is the disclosure of a prior U.S. patent to the same party, not copending. The question is one of dedication to the public. Note however, In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971) which substantially did away with the doctrine of dedication.
(G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting his or her 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 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
(I) Where the subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). 37 CFR 1.131 is designed to permit an applicant to overcome rejections based on references or activities which are not statutory bars, but which have dates prior to the effective filing date of the application but subsequent to the applicant's actual date of invention. However, when the subject matter relied on is also available under 35 U.S.C. 102(g), a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration cannot be used to overcome it. In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 USPQ 178 (CCPA 1973). This is because subject matter which is available under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) by definition must have been made before the applicant made his or her invention. By contrast, references under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e), for example, merely establish a presumption that their subject matter was made before applicant's invention date. It is this presumption which may be rebutted by evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.131.
(J) Where the subject matter corresponding to a lost count in an interference is either prior art under 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 to antedate the filing date of an interfering application). On the matter of when a "lost count" in an interference constitutes prior art under 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 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 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 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP § 2138.01 and § 2138.02.
This got cut off please see email below. MPEP 715
Sorry this got cut off a bit made it confusing MPEP 715
II. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS ARE INAPPROPRIATE
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate in the following situations:
(A) Where the reference publication date is more than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. Such a reference is a “statutory bar” under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as referenced in 37 CFR 1.131(a)(2). A reference that only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) is not a “statutory bar.”
(B) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims the same patentable invention. See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “same patentable invention” 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 1.130 may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.
(C) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or his or her 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 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
(D) Where the effective filing date of applicant's or patent owner's parent application or an International Convention proved filing date is prior to the effective date of the reference, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 is unnecessary because the reference should not have been used. See MPEP § 201.11 to § 201.15.
(E) Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention. The question involved is one of "double patenting."
(F) Where the reference is the disclosure of a prior U.S. patent to the same party, not copending. The question is one of dedication to the public. Note however, In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971) which substantially did away with the doctrine of dedication.
(G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting his or her 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 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
(I) Where the subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). 37 CFR 1.131 is designed to permit an applicant to overcome rejections based on references or activities which are not statutory bars, but which have dates prior to the effective filing date of the application but subsequent to the applicant's actual date of invention. However, when the subject matter relied on is also available under 35 U.S.C. 102(g), a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration cannot be used to overcome it. In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 USPQ 178 (CCPA 1973). This is because subject matter which is available under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) by definition must have been made before the applicant made his or her invention. By contrast, references under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (e), for example, merely establish a presumption that their subject matter was made before applicant's invention date. It is this presumption which may be rebutted by evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.131.
(J) Where the subject matter corresponding to a lost count in an interference is either prior art under 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 to antedate the filing date of an interfering application). On the matter of when a "lost count" in an interference constitutes prior art under 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 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 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 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP § 2138.01 and § 2138.02.