FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 12
Examination of application
35 U.S.C. § 131
Title35 — Patents
Chapter12 — EXAMINATION OF APPLICATION
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 131 (Examination of application) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
35 U.S.C. § 131.
Text
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister Incorporated
863 F.2d 867 (Federal Circuit, 1988)
Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., A/K/A Smc Corporation, and Smc Pneumatics, Inc.
234 F.3d 558 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.
620 F.2d 1247 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Edward and Lucy Kalpakian, Etc.
446 F.2d 738 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Inc.
840 F.2d 1565 (Federal Circuit, 1988)
In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen
33 F.3d 1526 (Federal Circuit, 1994)
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals
289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Illinois, 2003)
In Re Stephen B. Bogese II
303 F.3d 1362 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Raymond A. Chamberlin v. Forester W. Isen
779 F.2d 522 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
In Re Robert D. Jerabek
789 F.2d 886 (Federal Circuit, 1986)
Inre: Packard
751 F.3d 1307 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalbert
910 N.E.2d 330 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
Application of Milton E. Herr
377 F.2d 610 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
In Re Kozaburo Harita, Kukiyoshi Ajisawa, Kinji Iizuke, Yukihiko Kinoshita, Tetsuhide Kamijo, and Michihiro Kobayashi
847 F.2d 801 (Federal Circuit, 1988)
Odyssey Logistics and Tech. v. Iancu
959 F.3d 1104 (Federal Circuit, 2020)
Grinnell Corporation v. American Monorail Company
285 F. Supp. 219 (D. South Carolina, 1967)
Russell v. Trimfit, Inc.
428 F. Supp. 91 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
Eastman Kodak Company v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
704 F.2d 1319 (Fourth Circuit, 1983)
Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos
906 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Virginia, 2012)
Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc.
821 F. Supp. 1551 (D. Delaware, 1992)
Source Credit
History
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §36 (R.S. 4893).
The first part is revised in language and amplified. The phrase "and that the invention is sufficiently useful and important" is omitted as unnecessary, the requirements for patentability being stated in sections 101, 102 and 103.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in two places.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Pre-Prosecution Assessment Pilot Program
Pub. L. 117–328, div. W, §106, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5521, provided that:
"(a) Pilot Program.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022], the Director shall establish a pilot program to assist first-time prospective patent applicants in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a potential patent application submitted by such a prospective applicant.
"(b) Considerations.—In developing the pilot program required under subsection (a), the Director shall establish—
"(1) a notification process to notify a prospective patent applicant seeking an assessment described in that subsection that any assessment so provided may not be considered an official ruling of patentability from the Office;
"(2) conditions to determine eligibility for the pilot program, taking into consideration available resources;
"(3) reasonable limitations on the amount of time to be spent providing assistance to each individual first-time prospective patent applicant;
"(4) procedures for referring prospective patent applicants to legal counsel, including through the patent pro bono programs; and
"(5) procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed by prospective patent applicants."
[For definitions of terms used in section 106 of div. W of Pub. L. 117–328, set out above, see section 102 of div. W of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as a Definitions note under section 1 of this title.]
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §36 (R.S. 4893).
The first part is revised in language and amplified. The phrase "and that the invention is sufficiently useful and important" is omitted as unnecessary, the requirements for patentability being stated in sections 101, 102 and 103.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in two places.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Pre-Prosecution Assessment Pilot Program
Pub. L. 117–328, div. W, §106, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5521, provided that:
"(a) Pilot Program.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022], the Director shall establish a pilot program to assist first-time prospective patent applicants in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a potential patent application submitted by such a prospective applicant.
"(b) Considerations.—In developing the pilot program required under subsection (a), the Director shall establish—
"(1) a notification process to notify a prospective patent applicant seeking an assessment described in that subsection that any assessment so provided may not be considered an official ruling of patentability from the Office;
"(2) conditions to determine eligibility for the pilot program, taking into consideration available resources;
"(3) reasonable limitations on the amount of time to be spent providing assistance to each individual first-time prospective patent applicant;
"(4) procedures for referring prospective patent applicants to legal counsel, including through the patent pro bono programs; and
"(5) procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information disclosed by prospective patent applicants."
[For definitions of terms used in section 106 of div. W of Pub. L. 117–328, set out above, see section 102 of div. W of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as a Definitions note under section 1 of this title.]
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/131.