直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

IP Update

First-Inventor-to-File
America Invents Act Proposed Rules and Examination Guidelines

August 1, 2012

By Adriana L. Burgy

On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published proposed rules and examination guidelines for the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). 77 Fed. Reg. 43,742 (July 26, 2012); 77 Fed. Reg. 43,759 (July 26, 2012). The publication of the proposed rules and examination guidelines opens a public-comment period that runs until October 5, 2012. During this time period, the USPTO seeks the benefit of the public’s view on the implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. Comments can be submitted electronically or by mail and will be available for public inspection at the USPTO’s Alexandria, VA, location or on the USPTO’s website (http://www.uspto.gov).

Section 3 of the AIA converts the U.S. patent system from a “first-to-invent” to an FITF system. The FITF provisions take effect on March 16, 2013. The proposed changes detail the rules of agency practice for implementing the AIA. Namely, the proposed rules make changes to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are consistent with, and address the examination issues raised by, the changes in section 3 of the AIA.

Generally, the proposed rules encompass the following changes:

  1. USPTO adds definitions from the AIA to the rules of practice.
  2. USPTO amends existing affidavit and declaration provisions for showing attribution of a disclosure to an inventor or joint inventor, prior disclosure, or derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
  3. USPTO provides certain time limits for making a claim to priority and filing a certified copy of a foreign application.
  4. USPTO eliminates provisions directed to statutory invention registrations.
  5. USPTO includes additional requirements for nonprovisional applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that identify whether the application is subject to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as amended by the AIA.

The proposed guidelines, which were also published with the proposed rules, detail the agency’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as amended by the AIA. The proposed guidelines also inform the public and USPTO personnel on how the USPTO’s implementation of the FITF provisions will impact the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Notably, the proposed examination guidelines explain the type of prior art that can preclude a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and the type of prior art that falls under the exceptions of § 102(b).

In September 2012, the USPTO will discuss the FITF proposed rules and examination guidelines at various cross-country road shows in Alexandria, VA; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Minneapolis, MN; and New York City, NY. Specific information regarding those road shows can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/roadshow.jsp.

 

Related Practices

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Related Professionals

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP