For requests for correction of inventorship filed under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (d) on or after September 16, 2012 (without regard to the filing date of the application), see MPEP § 602.01(c)(1).

For requests filed on or after September 16, 2012, under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to correct or update inventor names, or to change the order of inventor names, see MPEP § 602.01(c)(2). Note that requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 will be handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).

For requests filed on or after September 16, 2012, under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to correct or update inventor names, or to change the order of inventor names, see MPEP § 602.01(c)(2). Note that requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 will be handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).

For requests for correction of inventorship filed before September 16, 2012 (without regard to the filing date of the application), see MPEP § 602.01(c)(3) in Revision 08.2017 of the Ninth Edition of the MPEP, published in January 2018.

Correction of inventorship may also be obtained by the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53 without the need for filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48, although it should be noted that the requirements for a request under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 are minimal.

Note that a correction of inventorship may result in the loss of power of attorney. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(e) provides that if the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity, and an added inventor pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the 37 CFR 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting in a representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable.

Note that a correction of inventorship may result in the loss of power of attorney. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(e) provides that if the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity, and an added inventor pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the 37 CFR 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting in a representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventorship in the continuing application is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the ADS filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an ADS is not filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration, then the inventorship is the inventorship in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless accompanied by a statement, signed by a 37 CFR 1.33(b) party, stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application. Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must execute an inventor’s oath or declaration, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

37 CFR 1.48 does not apply to reissue applications as is noted in its title, whether correcting an inventorship error in the patent to be reissued or in the reissue application itself. Where an error in inventorship in a patent is to be corrected via a reissue application, see 37 CFR 1.171 – 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1412.04. Where such an error is to be corrected via a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.324, see MPEP § 1481. See 37 CFR 1.48(i) for correction of inventorship in interferences and contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

37 CFR 1.48 does not apply to reissue applications as is noted in its title, whether correcting an inventorship error in the patent to be reissued or in the reissue application itself. Where an error in inventorship in a patent is to be corrected via a reissue application, see 37 CFR 1.171 – 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1412.04. Where such an error is to be corrected via a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.324, see MPEP § 1481. See 37 CFR 1.48(i) for correction of inventorship in interferences and contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

35 U.S.C. 120 permits a continuing application to claim the benefit of the filing date of a copending, previously filed, parent application provided there is inventorship overlap between the continuing application and the parent application. If the inventive entity of a continuing application includes an inventor named in the parent application, the inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met. However, refiling to change inventorship could result in the loss of a benefit claim if there is no overlap in inventorship between the two applications.

35 U.S.C. 120 permits a continuing application to claim the benefit of the filing date of a copending, previously filed, parent application provided there is inventorship overlap between the continuing application and the parent application. If the inventive entity of a continuing application includes an inventor named in the parent application, the inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met. However, refiling to change inventorship could result in the loss of a benefit claim if there is no overlap in inventorship between the two applications.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement was made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) was granted by OPAP. Prior to issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.

The Office will issue a filing receipt listing the inventors identified at the time of filing of the application even if the application was filed without an executed oath or declaration. See MPEP § 602.01 for information specific to naming inventorship. Correction of inventorship may be requested under 37 CFR 1.48 or may be obtained by filing a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53.

The Office will issue a filing receipt listing the inventors identified at the time of filing of the application even if the application was filed without an executed oath or declaration. See MPEP § 602.01 for information specific to naming inventorship. Correction of inventorship may be requested under 37 CFR 1.48 or may be obtained by filing a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53.

See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection II for information regarding completion of an nonprovisional application subsequent to the filing date pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(f) (e.g., because the inventor’s oath or declaration was not present on filing date). See MPEP § 601.01(b) for information regarding completion of a provisional application subsequent to the filing date.

37 CFR 1.48 does not apply to reissue applications as is noted in its title, whether correcting an inventorship error in the patent to be reissued or in the reissue application itself. Where an error in inventorship in a patent is to be corrected via a reissue application, see 37 CFR 1.171 – 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1412.04. Where such an error is to be corrected via a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.324, see MPEP § 1481. See 37 CFR 1.48(i) for correction of inventorship in interferences and contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Although 37 CFR 1.48 does not contain a diligence requirement for filing the request, once an inventorship error is discovered, timeliness requirements under 37 CFR 1.116 and 37 CFR 1.312 apply.

Note that a correction of inventorship may result in the loss of power of attorney. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(e) provides that if the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity, and an added inventor pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the 37 CFR 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting in a representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventorship in the continuing application is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the ADS filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an ADS is not filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration, then the inventorship is the inventorship in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless accompanied by a statement, signed by a 37 CFR 1.33(b) party, stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application. Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must execute an inventor’s oath or declaration, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventorship in the continuing application is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the ADS filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an ADS is not filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration, then the inventorship is the inventorship in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless accompanied by a statement, signed by a 37 CFR 1.33(b) party, stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application. Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must execute an inventor’s oath or declaration, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.