Patent Law FAQ

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent design patent application by filing a request for a CPA.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.30: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. This means that when a CPA is properly filed and accepted, it continues the prosecution of the parent application while establishing a new application.

For more information on continued prosecution application, visit: continued prosecution application.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.

For more information on Patent Application Process, visit: Patent Application Process.

Can a divisional application be filed without a restriction requirement?

While divisional applications are typically filed in response to a restriction requirement, they can be filed voluntarily without one. The MPEP 201.06 states:

“A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.”

However, the use of “often” implies that this is not always the case. Applicants may choose to file a divisional application voluntarily if they:

• Recognize distinct inventions in their application
• Want to pursue different claim scopes separately
• Need to address potential unity of invention issues proactively

It’s important to note that voluntarily filing a divisional application without a restriction requirement may affect the application of the safe harbor provision under 35 U.S.C. 121, which protects against double patenting rejections in certain cases.

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).

According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:

“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”

This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:

• Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
• Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.

The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:

“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”

This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Can a continuation-in-part application claim priority to a provisional application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim priority to a provisional application, but with some important considerations. The MPEP 201.08 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, but it can be inferred from the general rules governing CIP applications and provisional applications.

Key points to understand:

• Priority claim: A CIP can claim priority to a provisional application for subject matter disclosed in the provisional.
• New matter: Any new matter added in the CIP will have the filing date of the CIP itself, not the provisional application.
• One-year deadline: The CIP must be filed within one year of the provisional application’s filing date to claim its benefit.
• Multiple priorities: A CIP might claim priority to both a provisional and a non-provisional application in some cases.

Inventors should carefully document which parts of their CIP application correspond to the provisional disclosure to ensure proper priority claims.

For more information on new matter, visit: new matter.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

A ‘bypass’ continuation application is a specific type of continuation application that is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) to ‘bypass’ the national stage of an international application. As explained in MPEP 201.06(c):

“A continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed as a continuation of an international application designating the United States without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. This is often referred to as a ‘bypass’ continuation application.”

This type of application allows applicants to pursue patent protection in the U.S. based on their international application without going through the formal national stage entry process. It can be advantageous in certain situations, such as when an applicant wants to modify claims or add new matter before U.S. examination.

What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?

Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:

‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’

The significance of copendency includes:

• Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
• Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
• Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.

Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.

For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.

For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.

For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.

While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:

Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].

CPAs allow applicants to:

• Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
• Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
• Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application

For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.

For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:

1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.

2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.

3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent design patent application by filing a request for a CPA.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.30: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. This means that when a CPA is properly filed and accepted, it continues the prosecution of the parent application while establishing a new application.

For more information on continued prosecution application, visit: continued prosecution application.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.

For more information on Patent Application Process, visit: Patent Application Process.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

Can a divisional application be filed without a restriction requirement?

While divisional applications are typically filed in response to a restriction requirement, they can be filed voluntarily without one. The MPEP 201.06 states:

“A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.”

However, the use of “often” implies that this is not always the case. Applicants may choose to file a divisional application voluntarily if they:

• Recognize distinct inventions in their application
• Want to pursue different claim scopes separately
• Need to address potential unity of invention issues proactively

It’s important to note that voluntarily filing a divisional application without a restriction requirement may affect the application of the safe harbor provision under 35 U.S.C. 121, which protects against double patenting rejections in certain cases.

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).

According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:

“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”

This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:

• Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
• Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.

The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:

“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”

This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:

1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.

2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.

3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

Can a continuation-in-part application claim priority to a provisional application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim priority to a provisional application, but with some important considerations. The MPEP 201.08 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, but it can be inferred from the general rules governing CIP applications and provisional applications.

Key points to understand:

• Priority claim: A CIP can claim priority to a provisional application for subject matter disclosed in the provisional.
• New matter: Any new matter added in the CIP will have the filing date of the CIP itself, not the provisional application.
• One-year deadline: The CIP must be filed within one year of the provisional application’s filing date to claim its benefit.
• Multiple priorities: A CIP might claim priority to both a provisional and a non-provisional application in some cases.

Inventors should carefully document which parts of their CIP application correspond to the provisional disclosure to ensure proper priority claims.

For more information on new matter, visit: new matter.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

A ‘bypass’ continuation application is a specific type of continuation application that is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) to ‘bypass’ the national stage of an international application. As explained in MPEP 201.06(c):

“A continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed as a continuation of an international application designating the United States without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. This is often referred to as a ‘bypass’ continuation application.”

This type of application allows applicants to pursue patent protection in the U.S. based on their international application without going through the formal national stage entry process. It can be advantageous in certain situations, such as when an applicant wants to modify claims or add new matter before U.S. examination.

What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?

Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:

‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’

The significance of copendency includes:

• Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
• Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
• Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.

Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.

For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.

For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.

For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.

While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:

Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].

CPAs allow applicants to:

• Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
• Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
• Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application

For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.

For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent design patent application by filing a request for a CPA.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.30: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. This means that when a CPA is properly filed and accepted, it continues the prosecution of the parent application while establishing a new application.

For more information on continued prosecution application, visit: continued prosecution application.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.

For more information on Patent Application Process, visit: Patent Application Process.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

Can a divisional application be filed without a restriction requirement?

While divisional applications are typically filed in response to a restriction requirement, they can be filed voluntarily without one. The MPEP 201.06 states:

“A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.”

However, the use of “often” implies that this is not always the case. Applicants may choose to file a divisional application voluntarily if they:

• Recognize distinct inventions in their application
• Want to pursue different claim scopes separately
• Need to address potential unity of invention issues proactively

It’s important to note that voluntarily filing a divisional application without a restriction requirement may affect the application of the safe harbor provision under 35 U.S.C. 121, which protects against double patenting rejections in certain cases.

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).

According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:

“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”

This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:

• Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
• Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.

The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:

“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”

This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:

1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.

2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.

3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

Can a continuation-in-part application claim priority to a provisional application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim priority to a provisional application, but with some important considerations. The MPEP 201.08 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, but it can be inferred from the general rules governing CIP applications and provisional applications.

Key points to understand:

• Priority claim: A CIP can claim priority to a provisional application for subject matter disclosed in the provisional.
• New matter: Any new matter added in the CIP will have the filing date of the CIP itself, not the provisional application.
• One-year deadline: The CIP must be filed within one year of the provisional application’s filing date to claim its benefit.
• Multiple priorities: A CIP might claim priority to both a provisional and a non-provisional application in some cases.

Inventors should carefully document which parts of their CIP application correspond to the provisional disclosure to ensure proper priority claims.

For more information on new matter, visit: new matter.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

A ‘bypass’ continuation application is a specific type of continuation application that is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) to ‘bypass’ the national stage of an international application. As explained in MPEP 201.06(c):

“A continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed as a continuation of an international application designating the United States without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. This is often referred to as a ‘bypass’ continuation application.”

This type of application allows applicants to pursue patent protection in the U.S. based on their international application without going through the formal national stage entry process. It can be advantageous in certain situations, such as when an applicant wants to modify claims or add new matter before U.S. examination.

What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?

Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:

‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’

The significance of copendency includes:

• Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
• Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
• Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.

Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.

For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.

For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.

For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.

While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:

Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].

CPAs allow applicants to:

• Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
• Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
• Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application

For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.

For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent design patent application by filing a request for a CPA.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.30: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. This means that when a CPA is properly filed and accepted, it continues the prosecution of the parent application while establishing a new application.

For more information on continued prosecution application, visit: continued prosecution application.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.

For more information on Patent Application Process, visit: Patent Application Process.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

Can a divisional application be filed without a restriction requirement?

While divisional applications are typically filed in response to a restriction requirement, they can be filed voluntarily without one. The MPEP 201.06 states:

“A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner.”

However, the use of “often” implies that this is not always the case. Applicants may choose to file a divisional application voluntarily if they:

• Recognize distinct inventions in their application
• Want to pursue different claim scopes separately
• Need to address potential unity of invention issues proactively

It’s important to note that voluntarily filing a divisional application without a restriction requirement may affect the application of the safe harbor provision under 35 U.S.C. 121, which protects against double patenting rejections in certain cases.

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).

According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:

“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”

This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Divisional applications and provisional applications are distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and characteristics:

• Divisional Application: Claims subject matter from a prior non-provisional application that is independent and distinct from the original claims.
• Provisional Application: A temporary application that establishes a priority date but does not mature into an issued patent.

The MPEP explicitly states in MPEP ¶ 2.01:

“An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘divisional’ of the prior application.”

This distinction is important because divisional applications claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, while provisional applications are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.

For more information on patent law, visit: patent law.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations:

1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application.

2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter.

3. Relationship to Utility Applications: A design application can also be a continuation or CIP of a utility application, provided the drawings in the utility application sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

The MPEP states: “A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

It’s important to note that while not explicitly stated for continuations and CIPs, the same principle applies – the earlier application must sufficiently disclose the claimed design.

Can a continuation-in-part application claim priority to a provisional application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim priority to a provisional application, but with some important considerations. The MPEP 201.08 doesn’t explicitly address this scenario, but it can be inferred from the general rules governing CIP applications and provisional applications.

Key points to understand:

• Priority claim: A CIP can claim priority to a provisional application for subject matter disclosed in the provisional.
• New matter: Any new matter added in the CIP will have the filing date of the CIP itself, not the provisional application.
• One-year deadline: The CIP must be filed within one year of the provisional application’s filing date to claim its benefit.
• Multiple priorities: A CIP might claim priority to both a provisional and a non-provisional application in some cases.

Inventors should carefully document which parts of their CIP application correspond to the provisional disclosure to ensure proper priority claims.

For more information on new matter, visit: new matter.

For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.

A ‘bypass’ continuation application is a specific type of continuation application that is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) to ‘bypass’ the national stage of an international application. As explained in MPEP 201.06(c):

“A continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed as a continuation of an international application designating the United States without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. This is often referred to as a ‘bypass’ continuation application.”

This type of application allows applicants to pursue patent protection in the U.S. based on their international application without going through the formal national stage entry process. It can be advantageous in certain situations, such as when an applicant wants to modify claims or add new matter before U.S. examination.

What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?

Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:

‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’

The significance of copendency includes:

• Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
• Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
• Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.

Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.

For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.

For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.

For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.

While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:

Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].

CPAs allow applicants to:

• Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
• Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
• Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application

For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.

For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.