Patent bar Pre-AIA novelty and statutory bars question: applicant overcome the rejection with a declaration

Patent barPre-AIA novelty and statutory bars

A patent application examined under pre-AIA law was filed in the United States on February 4, 2013, with no benefit or priority claim. The examiner cites a journal article by an unrelated author published on January 15, 2012, that anticipates the claims. The applicant has lab notebooks proving conception and reduction to practice in 2011. Can the applicant overcome the rejection with a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131?

A Yes, because the notebooks show the invention was made before January 15, 2012
B No, because the article is a pre-AIA 102(b) statutory bar, which no Rule 131 showing can antedate
C Yes, because Rule 131 can antedate any printed publication by another
D No, because Rule 131 is never available in a pre-AIA application
E Yes, if the applicant also files a terminal disclaimer

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: B. No, because the article is a pre-AIA 102(b) statutory bar, which no Rule 131 showing can antedate

Answer: No, because the article is a pre-AIA 102(b) statutory bar, which no Rule 131 showing can antedate. The article was published more than one year before the February 4, 2013 U.S. filing date, so it is pre-AIA 102(b) art. A Rule 131 declaration can antedate references that qualify only under 102(a), 102(e) or (in examination) 102(g), but never a 102(b) bar, because the bar depends on the filing date, not the date of invention (MPEP 715, 2133). Why not the others: - Invention before the article: proving earlier invention does not overcome a statutory bar. - Any printed publication: Rule 131 cannot reach publications more than a year before the filing date. - Never available pre-AIA: Rule 131 is a pre-AIA tool; it simply cannot defeat a 102(b) bar. - A terminal disclaimer: it overcomes double patenting, not anticipation by a publication. Rule: A pre-AIA 102(b) bar is measured from the U.S. filing date and cannot be sworn behind. Source: MPEP § 715, § 2133 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b); 37 CFR 1.131; as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Swearing behind a reference that is more than a year older than the filing date.

Practice more Patent bar Pre-AIA novelty and statutory bars questions

Exam-style questions with worked answers, then full timed mocks. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Study note: Pre-AIA novelty and statutory bars Patent barpractice questions & mock exams

Related Patent bar practice questions

A pre-AIA application was filed on December 3, 2012, with no benefit or priority claim. Its claims are rejected under pre-AIA 102(a) over a journal article by others published on June 20, 2012. The inventor actually reduced the invention to practice in the United States in March 2012. Which reply is most appropriate?In a pre-AIA application, the examiner cites a U.S. patent to an unrelated inventor that claims priority to a French application filed on April 2, 2011; the patent's U.S. application was filed on March 30, 2012. The applicant's application was filed on January 10, 2012, with no priority claim. What is the effect of the U.S. patent under pre-AIA 102(e)?A claim recites a mathematical formula for calculating the optimal cure time of rubber, and further recites constantly measuring mold temperature, recalculating the cure time with the formula, and automatically opening the press when the calculated time has elapsed. Under the USPTO's analysis, which conclusion is best supported?

Build a daily practice habit — a few exam-style questions a day, with worked answers. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Original study material written from the MPEP; not a question from the current exam.Independent. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO. Verify figures and rules against current guidance before relying on them.