Patent Law FAQ

The MPEP does not specify a fixed deadline for submitting the English translation of a non-English provisional application. However, it indicates that the translation must be provided within a time period set by the USPTO. According to MPEP ¶ 2.38:

“If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned.”

This suggests that the USPTO will set a specific deadline in an Office action, and you must comply with this deadline to avoid abandonment of your application.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

Claiming benefit under these statutes allows an application to receive the earlier filing date of a prior-filed application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art. However, this claim also requires that the application does not contain new matter.

The MPEP ¶ 2.10.01 states:

“This form paragraph should be used when an application, which claims the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains new matter relative to the prior-filed application, and purports to be a ‘continuation,’ ‘division,’ or ‘divisional application’ of the prior-filed application.”

If new matter is found, the applicant may need to change the application type or remove the benefit claim to maintain the new subject matter.

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

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 365(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 365(c).

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 386(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 386(c).

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

For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:

“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”

This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:

• Continuation
• Divisional
• Continuation-in-part

of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.

Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.

For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.

If you missed the deadline for filing a benefit claim, you may still be able to claim the benefit by filing a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim. The process differs based on the type of benefit claim:

• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c)
• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e)

The MPEP states: “If applicant desires the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).”

The petition must include:

1. The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted)
2. A petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)
3. A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional

The Director may require additional information if there’s a question about whether the delay was unintentional.

For more information on 37 CFR 1.78, visit: 37 CFR 1.78.

For more information on petition fee, visit: petition fee.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

If you filed a translation of the non-English provisional application and a statement of accuracy in the nonprovisional application before November 25, 2005, you do not need to provide them again. The MPEP ¶ 2.38 states in the Examiner Note:

“Do not use this form paragraph if a translation of the provisional application and a statement that the translation was accurate were filed in the nonprovisional application (the present application) before November 25, 2005.”

This exception only applies to translations filed in the nonprovisional application before the specified date. For all other cases, the translation and statement must be filed in the provisional application itself.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

If you submitted the reference to the prior application within the required time period but in the wrong location, you may not need to file a petition. The MPEP provides guidance on this situation:

If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. (MPEP § 211)

However, you are still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. This means:

• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: File an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference.
• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: File either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76.

For more information on petition requirements, visit: petition requirements.

Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:

1. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
2. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.

According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.

Important considerations:

• Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
• If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
• Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
• In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.

Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.

A ‘bypass’ application is:

• A regular national application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b)
• It claims benefit of an international application’s filing date without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371
• It can be filed as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the international application

MPEP 211.01(c) explains: “Rather than submitting a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, applicant may file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an international (PCT) application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such applications are often referred to as ‘bypass’ applications.”

The MPEP does not specify a fixed deadline for submitting the English translation of a non-English provisional application. However, it indicates that the translation must be provided within a time period set by the USPTO. According to MPEP ¶ 2.38:

“If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned.”

This suggests that the USPTO will set a specific deadline in an Office action, and you must comply with this deadline to avoid abandonment of your application.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

A ‘bypass’ application is:

• A regular national application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b)
• It claims benefit of an international application’s filing date without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371
• It can be filed as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the international application

MPEP 211.01(c) explains: “Rather than submitting a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, applicant may file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an international (PCT) application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such applications are often referred to as ‘bypass’ applications.”

Claiming benefit under these statutes allows an application to receive the earlier filing date of a prior-filed application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art. However, this claim also requires that the application does not contain new matter.

The MPEP ¶ 2.10.01 states:

“This form paragraph should be used when an application, which claims the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains new matter relative to the prior-filed application, and purports to be a ‘continuation,’ ‘division,’ or ‘divisional application’ of the prior-filed application.”

If new matter is found, the applicant may need to change the application type or remove the benefit claim to maintain the new subject matter.

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

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 365(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 365(c).

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 386(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 386(c).

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

For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:

“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”

This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:

• Continuation
• Divisional
• Continuation-in-part

of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.

Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.

For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.

If you missed the deadline for filing a benefit claim, you may still be able to claim the benefit by filing a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim. The process differs based on the type of benefit claim:

• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c)
• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e)

The MPEP states: “If applicant desires the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).”

The petition must include:

1. The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted)
2. A petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)
3. A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional

The Director may require additional information if there’s a question about whether the delay was unintentional.

For more information on 37 CFR 1.78, visit: 37 CFR 1.78.

For more information on petition fee, visit: petition fee.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

If you filed a translation of the non-English provisional application and a statement of accuracy in the nonprovisional application before November 25, 2005, you do not need to provide them again. The MPEP ¶ 2.38 states in the Examiner Note:

“Do not use this form paragraph if a translation of the provisional application and a statement that the translation was accurate were filed in the nonprovisional application (the present application) before November 25, 2005.”

This exception only applies to translations filed in the nonprovisional application before the specified date. For all other cases, the translation and statement must be filed in the provisional application itself.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

If you submitted the reference to the prior application within the required time period but in the wrong location, you may not need to file a petition. The MPEP provides guidance on this situation:

If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. (MPEP § 211)

However, you are still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. This means:

• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: File an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference.
• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: File either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76.

For more information on petition requirements, visit: petition requirements.

Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:

1. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
2. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.

According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.

Important considerations:

• Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
• If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
• Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
• In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.

Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.

The MPEP does not specify a fixed deadline for submitting the English translation of a non-English provisional application. However, it indicates that the translation must be provided within a time period set by the USPTO. According to MPEP ¶ 2.38:

“If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned.”

This suggests that the USPTO will set a specific deadline in an Office action, and you must comply with this deadline to avoid abandonment of your application.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

A ‘bypass’ application is:

• A regular national application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b)
• It claims benefit of an international application’s filing date without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371
• It can be filed as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the international application

MPEP 211.01(c) explains: “Rather than submitting a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, applicant may file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an international (PCT) application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such applications are often referred to as ‘bypass’ applications.”

Claiming benefit under these statutes allows an application to receive the earlier filing date of a prior-filed application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art. However, this claim also requires that the application does not contain new matter.

The MPEP ¶ 2.10.01 states:

“This form paragraph should be used when an application, which claims the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains new matter relative to the prior-filed application, and purports to be a ‘continuation,’ ‘division,’ or ‘divisional application’ of the prior-filed application.”

If new matter is found, the applicant may need to change the application type or remove the benefit claim to maintain the new subject matter.

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

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 365(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 365(c).

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 386(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 386(c).

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

For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:

“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”

This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:

• Continuation
• Divisional
• Continuation-in-part

of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.

Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.

For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.

If you missed the deadline for filing a benefit claim, you may still be able to claim the benefit by filing a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim. The process differs based on the type of benefit claim:

• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c)
• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e)

The MPEP states: “If applicant desires the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).”

The petition must include:

1. The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted)
2. A petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)
3. A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional

The Director may require additional information if there’s a question about whether the delay was unintentional.

For more information on 37 CFR 1.78, visit: 37 CFR 1.78.

For more information on petition fee, visit: petition fee.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

If you filed a translation of the non-English provisional application and a statement of accuracy in the nonprovisional application before November 25, 2005, you do not need to provide them again. The MPEP ¶ 2.38 states in the Examiner Note:

“Do not use this form paragraph if a translation of the provisional application and a statement that the translation was accurate were filed in the nonprovisional application (the present application) before November 25, 2005.”

This exception only applies to translations filed in the nonprovisional application before the specified date. For all other cases, the translation and statement must be filed in the provisional application itself.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

If you submitted the reference to the prior application within the required time period but in the wrong location, you may not need to file a petition. The MPEP provides guidance on this situation:

If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. (MPEP § 211)

However, you are still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. This means:

• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: File an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference.
• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: File either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76.

For more information on petition requirements, visit: petition requirements.

Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:

1. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
2. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.

According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.

Important considerations:

• Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
• If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
• Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
• In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.

Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.

The MPEP does not specify a fixed deadline for submitting the English translation of a non-English provisional application. However, it indicates that the translation must be provided within a time period set by the USPTO. According to MPEP ¶ 2.38:

“If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned.”

This suggests that the USPTO will set a specific deadline in an Office action, and you must comply with this deadline to avoid abandonment of your application.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

A ‘bypass’ application is:

• A regular national application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b)
• It claims benefit of an international application’s filing date without entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371
• It can be filed as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the international application

MPEP 211.01(c) explains: “Rather than submitting a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, applicant may file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an international (PCT) application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such applications are often referred to as ‘bypass’ applications.”

Claiming benefit under these statutes allows an application to receive the earlier filing date of a prior-filed application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art. However, this claim also requires that the application does not contain new matter.

The MPEP ¶ 2.10.01 states:

“This form paragraph should be used when an application, which claims the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains new matter relative to the prior-filed application, and purports to be a ‘continuation,’ ‘division,’ or ‘divisional application’ of the prior-filed application.”

If new matter is found, the applicant may need to change the application type or remove the benefit claim to maintain the new subject matter.

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

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 365(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 365(c).

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 386(c), visit: 35 U.S.C. 386(c).

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

For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:

“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”

This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:

• Continuation
• Divisional
• Continuation-in-part

of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.

Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.

For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.

If you missed the deadline for filing a benefit claim, you may still be able to claim the benefit by filing a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim. The process differs based on the type of benefit claim:

• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c)
• For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c): File a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e)

The MPEP states: “If applicant desires the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).”

The petition must include:

1. The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted)
2. A petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)
3. A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional

The Director may require additional information if there’s a question about whether the delay was unintentional.

For more information on 37 CFR 1.78, visit: 37 CFR 1.78.

For more information on petition fee, visit: petition fee.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

If you filed a translation of the non-English provisional application and a statement of accuracy in the nonprovisional application before November 25, 2005, you do not need to provide them again. The MPEP ¶ 2.38 states in the Examiner Note:

“Do not use this form paragraph if a translation of the provisional application and a statement that the translation was accurate were filed in the nonprovisional application (the present application) before November 25, 2005.”

This exception only applies to translations filed in the nonprovisional application before the specified date. For all other cases, the translation and statement must be filed in the provisional application itself.

For more information on non-English language, visit: non-English language.

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

If you submitted the reference to the prior application within the required time period but in the wrong location, you may not need to file a petition. The MPEP provides guidance on this situation:

If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. (MPEP § 211)

However, you are still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. This means:

• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: File an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference.
• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: File either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76.

For more information on petition requirements, visit: petition requirements.

Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:

1. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
2. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.

According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.

Important considerations:

• Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
• If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
• Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
• In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.

Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.