Title 35 — Patents
Part II · Chapter 12 — Examination of Application
§ 131. Examination of application
Statutory 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.
Legislative history
Reconstructed from this section’s Code source credit and amendment notes, resolved against the local Statutes at Large. Editorial notes are evidence, not the law that made the change.
July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801 · 66 Stat. 801
Enacted · 35 U.S.C. § 131
July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801
Source evidence
Code source credit
July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000
Pub. L. 106–113 div. B § 1000(a)(9)(tIV)(s4732)(a)(10)(A) · 113 Stat. 1501
Amended · 35 U.S.C. § 131
Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273
Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 131
Pub. L. 106–113, as substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in two places
Source evidence
Code amendment note
Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in two places.Effective date note
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.Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002
Pub. L. 107–273 div. C title III § 13206(b)(1)(B) · 116 Stat. 1758
Changed · 35 U.S.C. § 131
Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below
Source evidence
Code amendment note
Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.Enacted provision · exact public law section
(B) in paragraph (10)(A), by inserting after “title 35, United States Code,” the following: “other than sections 1 through 6 (as amended by chapter 1 of this subtitle),”.
1 of 4 references resolved to an enrolled provision · 3 partial
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
Amendments1999–2002 · 2 rounds
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 , 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, , 136 Stat. 5521, provided that:
“(a) Pilot Program.—
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [], 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.]
Credits
1952–2002 · 3 acts
- 1952July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801
- 1999Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], , 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582
- 2002Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), , 116 Stat. 1906.
Show as published
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], , 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), , 116 Stat. 1906.)