3.2 The One-Year Inventor Grace Period & Exceptions

3.2 The One-Year Inventor Grace Period & Exceptions

1. The AIA Grace Period Architecture Overview

While the America Invents Act established a First-Inventor-to-File framework, Congress enacted 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to preserve a limited, highly structured one-year inventor grace period. The statutory exceptions under § 102(b) disqualify certain disclosures from becoming prior art under § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2).

A vital distinction tested on the Patent Bar is that the AIA grace period is not an absolute, unrestricted one-year buffer against all third-party activities. Rather, § 102(b) exceptions apply exclusively to disclosures that originate directly or indirectly from the inventor, or third-party disclosures made after the inventor has already publicly disclosed the subject matter.

---

2. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) Exceptions — Public Disclosures under § 102(a)(1)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1), a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention is exempted from being prior art under § 102(a)(1) if it falls within one of two statutory categories:

A. Attribution Exception — 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A)

"The disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor."

• Function: Protects the inventor against their own disclosures (e.g., academic journal articles, oral presentations, public trade show demonstrations, or product sales) made within the 1-year grace period.
• Derivation Reach: Also protects disclosures made by third parties who derived or obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor (e.g., a university press release, an unauthorized leak, or a licensee's publication).

B. Prior Public Disclosure / Shielding Exception — 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(B)

"The subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor."

• Function: Creates a "shielding" effect against intervening third-party disclosures. If Inventor A publicly discloses their invention on Day 1, Third Party X independently publishes a paper on the same subject matter on Day 30, and Inventor A files a U.S. patent application on Day 200 (within 1 year of Day 1), Third Party X's publication is disqualified as prior art under § 102(b)(1)(B).
• Subject Matter Identity Requirement: As explained in MPEP § 2153.02, to trigger the shielding exception, the subject matter previously disclosed by the inventor must be substantially the same as the subject matter disclosed in the intervening third-party reference. If the third party's disclosure contains distinct, non-obvious modifications not present in the inventor's prior disclosure, the shielding exception will not disqualify those modified disclosures.

---

3. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2) Exceptions — Secret Art under § 102(a)(2)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2), a disclosure in a U.S. patent, published U.S. application, or published PCT application is exempted from being prior art under § 102(a)(2) if it satisfies one of three statutory conditions:

1. § 102(b)(2)(A) — Derivation: The subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
2. § 102(b)(2)(B) — Shielding by Prior Public Disclosure: The subject matter disclosed had, before such application was effectively filed under § 102(a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or a derivative third party.
3. § 102(b)(2)(C) — Common Ownership: The subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

Joint Research Agreements (35 U.S.C. § 102(c)):

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(c) (incorporating the principles of the CREATE Act), subject matter disclosed in a § 102(a)(2) reference and a claimed invention are deemed commonly owned under § 102(b)(2)(C) if:

• The claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement (JRA) in effect on or before the claimed invention's effective filing date;
• The claimed invention resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA; and
• The patent application discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the JRA.

---

4. Practice & Procedure: 37 C.F.R. § 1.130 Declarations

When an examiner issues a rejection under § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2), the applicant can submit a formal evidence declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130 to invoke the statutory exceptions of § 102(b).

The Two Rule 130 Declaration Types:

---

5. Comparative Distinction: Rule 130 (AIA) vs. Rule 131 (Pre-AIA)

A major trap on the Patent Bar is confusing AIA Rule 130 declarations with Pre-AIA Rule 131 affidavits.

• Pre-AIA Rule 131 ("Swearing Back"): Allowed an applicant to disqualify a reference by submitting evidence of prior conception and reduction to practice of the invention in the U.S. prior to the reference's date, without any requirement of a public disclosure.
• AIA Rule 130: Does NOT allow an applicant to overcome a reference merely by proving prior private reduction to practice or conception. Under the AIA, private invention dates cannot overcome prior art. Rule 130 requires showing either attribution (Rule 130(a)) or prior public disclosure (Rule 130(b)).