2011 US Code
Title 35 - Patents
Part II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS (§§ 100 - 212)
Chapter 11 - APPLICATION FOR PATENT (§§ 111 - 123)
Section 121 - Divisional applications
View MetadataPublication Title | United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 35 - PATENTS |
Category | Bills and Statutes |
Collection | United States Code |
SuDoc Class Number | Y 1.2/5: |
Contained Within | Title 35 - PATENTS PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS CHAPTER 11 - APPLICATION FOR PATENT Sec. 121 - Divisional applications |
Contains | section 121 |
Date | 2011 |
Laws in Effect as of Date | January 3, 2012 |
Positive Law | Yes |
Disposition | standard |
Source Credit | July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; 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; Pub. L. 112-29, §§4(a)(2), 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 295, 335. |
Statutes at Large References | 66 Stat. 800 88 Stat. 1949 113 Stat. 1536 116 Stat. 1906 125 Stat. 295, 335 |
Public Law References | Public Law 93-596, Public Law 106-113, Public Law 107-273, Public Law 112-29 |
Download PDF
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 93–596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; 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; Pub. L. 112–29, §§4(a)(2), 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 295, 335.)
Amendment of SectionPub. L. 112–29, §20(j), (l), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 335, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, this section is amended by striking “of this title” each place that term appears. See 2011 Amendment note below.
Pub. L. 112–29, §4(a)(2), (e), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 295, 297, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent application that is filed on or after that effective date, this section is amended by striking “If a divisional application” and all that follows through “inventor.” See 2011 Amendment note below.
Historical and Revision NotesThis section enacts as law existing practice with respect to division, at the same time introducing a number of changes. Division is made discretionary with the Commissioner. The requirements of section 120 are made applicable and neither of the resulting patents can be held invalid over the other merely because of their being divided in several patents. In some cases a divisional application may be filed by the assignee.
Amendments2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §20(j), struck out “of this title” after “120”.
Pub. L. 112–29, §4(a)(2), struck out “If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor.” before “The validity of a patent”.
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” wherever appearing.
1975—Pub. L. 93–596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.
Effective Date of 2011 AmendmentAmendment by section 4(a)(2) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent application that is filed on or after that effective date, see section 4(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 111 of this title.
Amendment by section 20(j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration 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 AmendmentAmendment 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.
Effective Date of 1975 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 93–596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–596, set out as a note under section 1111 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. The United States Government Printing Office may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the US site. Please check official sources.