Browse Arkansas Code titles and sections
35 U.S.C. § 132 — Notice of rejection; reexamination
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
Page 60
TITLE 35—PATENTS
§ 132
(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.)
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 use-
ful and important’’ is omitted as unnecessary, the re-
quirements for patentability being stated in sections
101, 102 and 103.
Editorial Notes
AMENDMENTS
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to di-
rectory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amend-
ment 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 Direc-
tor shall establish a pilot program to assist first-time
prospective
patent
applicants
in
assessing
the
strengths and weaknesses of a potential patent applica-
tion submitted by such a prospective applicant.
‘‘(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the pilot pro-
gram required under subsection (a), the Director shall
establish—
‘‘(1) a notification process to notify a prospective
patent applicant seeking an assessment describe
Source: Supplied 2024 U.S. Code historical extraction · 35 U.S.C. § 132
Stored review status: historical_2024_not_currentness_verified. A text match is a research starting point; applicability is not established.
Original supplied file — preserved unchanged
Download original Markdown file
File SHA-256: 88b23d45a0a02d5ec0d0c1f161f74f60d1ab46d89945c5641d03a3a1c24a0884. The original may include catalog metadata, neighboring provisions, or embedded records outside this collection's scope. Search shows only the selected federal record. Historical editions and unverified snapshots are not a statement of current law.
Authority boundary: historical or unconfirmed source not current law verified.
Open the recorded source website ↗
Record provenance
Stable record: federal_law:legal_authorities:usc2024-e578d4da0999f5d938d0561c
Source file: Laws/federal/codes/united-states-code-2024/title-35/section-132-notice-of-rejection-reexamination--875b16b62b.md
Pages: Not recorded – Not recorded
Passage SHA-256: 0db3e02eacb811864d6350ea7b8927828b9f60df905604ec28c4d32f063d7a49
Source location: USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap12-sec132.pdf
Stored source content
Page 60
TITLE 35—PATENTS
§ 132
(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.)
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 use-
ful and important’’ is omitted as unnecessary, the re-
quirements for patentability being stated in sections
101, 102 and 103.
Editorial Notes
AMENDMENTS
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to di-
rectory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amend-
ment 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 Direc-
tor shall establish a pilot program to assist first-time
prospective
patent
applicants
in
assessing
the
strengths and weaknesses of a potential patent applica-
tion submitted by such a prospective applicant.
‘‘(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the pilot pro-
gram 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 re-
sources;
‘‘(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 ap-
plicants to legal counsel, including through the pat-
ent pro bono programs; and
‘‘(5) procedures to protect the confidentiality of the
information disclosed by prospective patent appli-
cants.’’
[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.]
§ 132. Notice of rejection; reexamination
(a) Whenever, on examination, any claim for a
patent is rejected, or any objection or require-
ment made, the Director shall notify the appli-
cant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejec-
tion, or objection or requirement, together with
such information and references as may be use-
ful in judging of the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of his application; and if after re-
ceiving such notice, the applicant persists in his
claim for a patent, with or without amendment,
the application shall be reexamined. No amend-
ment shall introduce new matter into the disclo-
sure of the invention.
(b) The Director shall prescribe regulations to
provide for the continued examination of appli-
cations for patent at the request of the appli-
cant. The Director may establish appropriate
fees for such continued examination and shall
provide a 50 percent reduction in such fees for
small entities that qualify for reduced fees
under section 41(h)(1).
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L.
106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§ 4403,
4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536,
1501A–560, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title
III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906;
Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 335.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 51 (R.S. 4903,
amended Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 452, § 1, 53 Stat. 1213).
The first paragraph of the corresponding section of
existing statute is revised in language and amplified to
incorporate present practice; the second paragraph of
the existing statute is placed in section 135.
The last sentence relating to new matter is added but
represents no departure from present practice.
Editorial Notes
AMENDMENTS
2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–29 struck out ‘‘of this
title’’ after ‘‘41(h)(1)’’.
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to di-
rectory language of Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV,
§ 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub.
L.
106–113,
§ 1000(a)(9)
[title
IV,
§ 4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, sub-
stituted ‘‘Director’’ for ‘‘Commissioner’’.
Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4403], designated
existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2011 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expi-
ration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011,
and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after
that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29,
set out as a note under section 2 of this title.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1999 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4405(b)],
Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–560, provided that:
‘‘The amendments made by section 4403 [amending this
section]—
‘‘(1) shall take effect on the date that is 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29,
1999], and shall apply to all applications filed under
section 111(a) of title 35, United States Code, on or
after June 8, 1995, and all applications complying
with section 371 of title 35, United States Code, that
resulted from international applications filed on or
after June 8, 1995; and
‘‘(2) do not apply to applications for design patents
under chapter 16 of title 35, United States Code.’’
Amendment
by
section
1000(a)(9)
[title
IV,
§ 4732(a)(10)(A)] of 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.
§ 133. Time for prosecuting application
Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the
application within six months after any action
Cross-references
Connections may be documented source relationships, shared citations or nearby passages. Each explains its basis; a connection alone does not establish applicability to your situation.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
**(a)** Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be reexamined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
**(b)** The Director shall prescribe regulations to provide for the continued examination of applications for patent at the request of the applicant. The Director may establish appropriate fees for such continued examination and shall provide a 50 percent reduction in such fees for small entities that qualify for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1).
Source: Supplied U.S. Code snapshot — release unconfirmed · 35 U.S.C. § 132
Stored review status: release_metadata_unconfirmed. Same stored citation; legal effect and authority still require review.