Patent Law FAQ

35 U.S.C. 119(e) is crucial in understanding the relationship between provisional applications and their non-provisional counterparts, particularly in terms of assignments. The MPEP § 306.01 states:

If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e) allows non-provisional applications to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from a provisional application.
• When a non-provisional application claims this benefit and contains only subject matter from the provisional, the assignment recorded for the provisional application remains effective for the non-provisional.
• This treatment aligns with how assignments are handled for continuations and divisions under 35 U.S.C. 120.

However, if new subject matter is introduced in the non-provisional application, different assignment rules may apply, as detailed in other parts of MPEP § 306.01.

35 U.S.C. 119(e) is crucial in understanding the relationship between provisional applications and their non-provisional counterparts, particularly in terms of assignments. The MPEP § 306.01 states:

If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e) allows non-provisional applications to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from a provisional application.
• When a non-provisional application claims this benefit and contains only subject matter from the provisional, the assignment recorded for the provisional application remains effective for the non-provisional.
• This treatment aligns with how assignments are handled for continuations and divisions under 35 U.S.C. 120.

However, if new subject matter is introduced in the non-provisional application, different assignment rules may apply, as detailed in other parts of MPEP § 306.01.

What are the restrictions on filing a continuation-in-part application?

n

While continuation-in-part (CIP) applications offer flexibility in adding new matter to existing patent applications, there are several important restrictions to consider. The MPEP 201.08 outlines some key points:

n

“A continuation-in-part application can be filed as a new application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a prior nonprovisional application or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior provisional application, provided the conditions set forth under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 are met.”

n

Key restrictions include:

n

n
• The CIP must be filed while the parent application is still pending (not abandoned or issued).

n

• At least one inventor named in the CIP must also be named in the parent application.

n

• The CIP must include a specific reference to the parent application.

n

• New matter in the CIP does not benefit from the parent application’s filing date.

n

• The CIP must be filed within the time limits specified in 37 CFR 1.78 to claim priority.

n

n

Additionally, applicants should be aware that filing a CIP may affect the patent term and the assessment of prior art for the new subject matter. Careful consideration of these restrictions is essential for effective patent strategy.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

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

To claim the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the following requirements must be met:

• The nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application’s filing date (unless the benefit has been restored)
• The provisional application must have at least one common inventor with the nonprovisional application
• The provisional application must be entitled to a filing date and have paid the basic filing fee
• If the provisional application was filed in a language other than English, an English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed

As stated in the MPEP: “When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored.”

Benefit claims can be made under various sections of the U.S. Code, each with specific requirements:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e): For provisional application benefits, refer to 37 CFR 1.78(a).
• 35 U.S.C. 120: For benefit claims to earlier nonprovisional applications, including the relationship (continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part).
• 35 U.S.C. 121: For divisional applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to PCT applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to international design 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.”

It’s important to note that the specific requirements and time limits may vary depending on the type of benefit claim. Always refer to the latest version of the MPEP and the relevant U.S. Code sections for the most up-to-date information.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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).

A continuation-in-part (CIP) application and a provisional application are two distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and effects. The key difference is highlighted in MPEP ¶ 2.06, which states:

An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application.

This means that:

• A CIP application builds upon a prior non-provisional application, adding new disclosure while claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date for the shared content.
• A provisional application is a temporary placeholder that establishes a priority date but does not mature into a patent. It cannot be continued or have a CIP.
• Applications claiming benefit from a provisional application are typically filed as new non-provisional applications, not as CIPs.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application cannot be considered a continuation-in-part (CIP). The MPEP explicitly states: An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application. (MPEP ¶ 2.06)

This distinction is important because:

• Provisional applications are not examined and do not mature into patents.
• The term ‘continuation-in-part’ is reserved for non-provisional applications that build upon prior non-provisional applications.
• The relationship between a non-provisional application and a provisional application is described as ‘claiming the benefit of’ the provisional, not as a continuation or CIP.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application should not be referred to as a ‘continuation’. The MPEP clearly states:

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

This is because provisional applications serve a different purpose than continuation applications. Provisional applications are temporary placeholders that establish a priority date but do not mature into issued patents. Continuations, on the other hand, are full patent applications that build upon previously filed non-provisional applications.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

What are the restrictions on filing a continuation-in-part application?

n

While continuation-in-part (CIP) applications offer flexibility in adding new matter to existing patent applications, there are several important restrictions to consider. The MPEP 201.08 outlines some key points:

n

“A continuation-in-part application can be filed as a new application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a prior nonprovisional application or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior provisional application, provided the conditions set forth under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 are met.”

n

Key restrictions include:

n

n
• The CIP must be filed while the parent application is still pending (not abandoned or issued).

n

• At least one inventor named in the CIP must also be named in the parent application.

n

• The CIP must include a specific reference to the parent application.

n

• New matter in the CIP does not benefit from the parent application’s filing date.

n

• The CIP must be filed within the time limits specified in 37 CFR 1.78 to claim priority.

n

n

Additionally, applicants should be aware that filing a CIP may affect the patent term and the assessment of prior art for the new subject matter. Careful consideration of these restrictions is essential for effective patent strategy.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

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

A continuation-in-part (CIP) application and a provisional application are two distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and effects. The key difference is highlighted in MPEP ¶ 2.06, which states:

An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application.

This means that:

• A CIP application builds upon a prior non-provisional application, adding new disclosure while claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date for the shared content.
• A provisional application is a temporary placeholder that establishes a priority date but does not mature into a patent. It cannot be continued or have a CIP.
• Applications claiming benefit from a provisional application are typically filed as new non-provisional applications, not as CIPs.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application cannot be considered a continuation-in-part (CIP). The MPEP explicitly states: An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application. (MPEP ¶ 2.06)

This distinction is important because:

• Provisional applications are not examined and do not mature into patents.
• The term ‘continuation-in-part’ is reserved for non-provisional applications that build upon prior non-provisional applications.
• The relationship between a non-provisional application and a provisional application is described as ‘claiming the benefit of’ the provisional, not as a continuation or CIP.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application should not be referred to as a ‘continuation’. The MPEP clearly states:

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

This is because provisional applications serve a different purpose than continuation applications. Provisional applications are temporary placeholders that establish a priority date but do not mature into issued patents. Continuations, on the other hand, are full patent applications that build upon previously filed non-provisional applications.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

To claim the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the following requirements must be met:

• The nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application’s filing date (unless the benefit has been restored)
• The provisional application must have at least one common inventor with the nonprovisional application
• The provisional application must be entitled to a filing date and have paid the basic filing fee
• If the provisional application was filed in a language other than English, an English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed

As stated in the MPEP: “When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored.”

Benefit claims can be made under various sections of the U.S. Code, each with specific requirements:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e): For provisional application benefits, refer to 37 CFR 1.78(a).
• 35 U.S.C. 120: For benefit claims to earlier nonprovisional applications, including the relationship (continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part).
• 35 U.S.C. 121: For divisional applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to PCT applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to international design 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.”

It’s important to note that the specific requirements and time limits may vary depending on the type of benefit claim. Always refer to the latest version of the MPEP and the relevant U.S. Code sections for the most up-to-date information.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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).

35 U.S.C. 119(e) is crucial in understanding the relationship between provisional applications and their non-provisional counterparts, particularly in terms of assignments. The MPEP § 306.01 states:

If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e) allows non-provisional applications to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from a provisional application.
• When a non-provisional application claims this benefit and contains only subject matter from the provisional, the assignment recorded for the provisional application remains effective for the non-provisional.
• This treatment aligns with how assignments are handled for continuations and divisions under 35 U.S.C. 120.

However, if new subject matter is introduced in the non-provisional application, different assignment rules may apply, as detailed in other parts of MPEP § 306.01.

35 U.S.C. 119(e) is crucial in understanding the relationship between provisional applications and their non-provisional counterparts, particularly in terms of assignments. The MPEP § 306.01 states:

If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e) allows non-provisional applications to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from a provisional application.
• When a non-provisional application claims this benefit and contains only subject matter from the provisional, the assignment recorded for the provisional application remains effective for the non-provisional.
• This treatment aligns with how assignments are handled for continuations and divisions under 35 U.S.C. 120.

However, if new subject matter is introduced in the non-provisional application, different assignment rules may apply, as detailed in other parts of MPEP § 306.01.

What are the restrictions on filing a continuation-in-part application?

n

While continuation-in-part (CIP) applications offer flexibility in adding new matter to existing patent applications, there are several important restrictions to consider. The MPEP 201.08 outlines some key points:

n

“A continuation-in-part application can be filed as a new application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a prior nonprovisional application or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior provisional application, provided the conditions set forth under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 are met.”

n

Key restrictions include:

n

n
• The CIP must be filed while the parent application is still pending (not abandoned or issued).

n

• At least one inventor named in the CIP must also be named in the parent application.

n

• The CIP must include a specific reference to the parent application.

n

• New matter in the CIP does not benefit from the parent application’s filing date.

n

• The CIP must be filed within the time limits specified in 37 CFR 1.78 to claim priority.

n

n

Additionally, applicants should be aware that filing a CIP may affect the patent term and the assessment of prior art for the new subject matter. Careful consideration of these restrictions is essential for effective patent strategy.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

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

To claim the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the following requirements must be met:

• The nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application’s filing date (unless the benefit has been restored)
• The provisional application must have at least one common inventor with the nonprovisional application
• The provisional application must be entitled to a filing date and have paid the basic filing fee
• If the provisional application was filed in a language other than English, an English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed

As stated in the MPEP: “When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored.”

Benefit claims can be made under various sections of the U.S. Code, each with specific requirements:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e): For provisional application benefits, refer to 37 CFR 1.78(a).
• 35 U.S.C. 120: For benefit claims to earlier nonprovisional applications, including the relationship (continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part).
• 35 U.S.C. 121: For divisional applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to PCT applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to international design 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.”

It’s important to note that the specific requirements and time limits may vary depending on the type of benefit claim. Always refer to the latest version of the MPEP and the relevant U.S. Code sections for the most up-to-date information.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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).

A continuation-in-part (CIP) application and a provisional application are two distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and effects. The key difference is highlighted in MPEP ¶ 2.06, which states:

An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application.

This means that:

• A CIP application builds upon a prior non-provisional application, adding new disclosure while claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date for the shared content.
• A provisional application is a temporary placeholder that establishes a priority date but does not mature into a patent. It cannot be continued or have a CIP.
• Applications claiming benefit from a provisional application are typically filed as new non-provisional applications, not as CIPs.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application cannot be considered a continuation-in-part (CIP). The MPEP explicitly states: An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application. (MPEP ¶ 2.06)

This distinction is important because:

• Provisional applications are not examined and do not mature into patents.
• The term ‘continuation-in-part’ is reserved for non-provisional applications that build upon prior non-provisional applications.
• The relationship between a non-provisional application and a provisional application is described as ‘claiming the benefit of’ the provisional, not as a continuation or CIP.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application should not be referred to as a ‘continuation’. The MPEP clearly states:

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

This is because provisional applications serve a different purpose than continuation applications. Provisional applications are temporary placeholders that establish a priority date but do not mature into issued patents. Continuations, on the other hand, are full patent applications that build upon previously filed non-provisional applications.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

35 U.S.C. 119(e) is crucial in understanding the relationship between provisional applications and their non-provisional counterparts, particularly in terms of assignments. The MPEP § 306.01 states:

If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e) allows non-provisional applications to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from a provisional application.
• When a non-provisional application claims this benefit and contains only subject matter from the provisional, the assignment recorded for the provisional application remains effective for the non-provisional.
• This treatment aligns with how assignments are handled for continuations and divisions under 35 U.S.C. 120.

However, if new subject matter is introduced in the non-provisional application, different assignment rules may apply, as detailed in other parts of MPEP § 306.01.

What are the restrictions on filing a continuation-in-part application?

n

While continuation-in-part (CIP) applications offer flexibility in adding new matter to existing patent applications, there are several important restrictions to consider. The MPEP 201.08 outlines some key points:

n

“A continuation-in-part application can be filed as a new application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a prior nonprovisional application or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior provisional application, provided the conditions set forth under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 are met.”

n

Key restrictions include:

n

n
• The CIP must be filed while the parent application is still pending (not abandoned or issued).

n

• At least one inventor named in the CIP must also be named in the parent application.

n

• The CIP must include a specific reference to the parent application.

n

• New matter in the CIP does not benefit from the parent application’s filing date.

n

• The CIP must be filed within the time limits specified in 37 CFR 1.78 to claim priority.

n

n

Additionally, applicants should be aware that filing a CIP may affect the patent term and the assessment of prior art for the new subject matter. Careful consideration of these restrictions is essential for effective patent strategy.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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

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

To claim the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the following requirements must be met:

• The nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application’s filing date (unless the benefit has been restored)
• The provisional application must have at least one common inventor with the nonprovisional application
• The provisional application must be entitled to a filing date and have paid the basic filing fee
• If the provisional application was filed in a language other than English, an English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed

As stated in the MPEP: “When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored.”

Benefit claims can be made under various sections of the U.S. Code, each with specific requirements:

• 35 U.S.C. 119(e): For provisional application benefits, refer to 37 CFR 1.78(a).
• 35 U.S.C. 120: For benefit claims to earlier nonprovisional applications, including the relationship (continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part).
• 35 U.S.C. 121: For divisional applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to PCT applications.
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c): For national stage applications claiming benefit to international design 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.”

It’s important to note that the specific requirements and time limits may vary depending on the type of benefit claim. Always refer to the latest version of the MPEP and the relevant U.S. Code sections for the most up-to-date information.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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).

A continuation-in-part (CIP) application and a provisional application are two distinct types of patent applications with different purposes and effects. The key difference is highlighted in MPEP ¶ 2.06, which states:

An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application.

This means that:

• A CIP application builds upon a prior non-provisional application, adding new disclosure while claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date for the shared content.
• A provisional application is a temporary placeholder that establishes a priority date but does not mature into a patent. It cannot be continued or have a CIP.
• Applications claiming benefit from a provisional application are typically filed as new non-provisional applications, not as CIPs.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application cannot be considered a continuation-in-part (CIP). The MPEP explicitly states: An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application. (MPEP ¶ 2.06)

This distinction is important because:

• Provisional applications are not examined and do not mature into patents.
• The term ‘continuation-in-part’ is reserved for non-provisional applications that build upon prior non-provisional applications.
• The relationship between a non-provisional application and a provisional application is described as ‘claiming the benefit of’ the provisional, not as a continuation or CIP.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.

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

No, a provisional application should not be referred to as a ‘continuation’. The MPEP clearly states:

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

This is because provisional applications serve a different purpose than continuation applications. Provisional applications are temporary placeholders that establish a priority date but do not mature into issued patents. Continuations, on the other hand, are full patent applications that build upon previously filed non-provisional applications.

For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).

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

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