Patent Law FAQ

Amendments to refer to Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) as continuation or divisional applications are not allowed because they are unnecessary and can potentially cause confusion. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 explains:

“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 the CPA itself already serves as the legally required reference to the prior application. Adding additional references through amendments is redundant and could potentially lead to inconsistencies or misinterpretations in the patent record.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference requirement under 35 U.S.C. 120 is satisfied by the CPA request itself. According to MPEP § 201.06(d):

“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 request, it automatically serves as the required reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120. No additional amendments or references in the specification are necessary to establish this connection.

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.

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.

The legal basis for denying amendments to Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) specifications that attempt to reference prior applications stems from both federal regulations and patent law. Specifically:

• 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7): This regulation establishes that a CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
• 35 U.S.C. 120: This statute outlines the requirements for claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States.

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. Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the prior application and any such amendment shall be denied entry.

This means that the CPA filing itself legally establishes the necessary connection to the prior application, making any specification amendment both redundant and impermissible.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

The legal basis for claiming the benefit of an international design application designating the United States is found in 35 U.S.C. 386(c). This statute allows a nonprovisional application to claim the benefit of a prior international design application, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120.

As stated in the MPEP: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States. This means that applicants can potentially secure an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional application by claiming the benefit of a previously filed international design application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• nonprovisional application
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?

The filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined based on when it is filed. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed. A request for a CPA is a specific reference to the prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means that the CPA’s filing date is the day when the separate request for a CPA is submitted, not the filing date of the prior application. It’s important to note that this request must specifically reference the prior application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 120.

To learn more:

• CPA
• filing date
• Continued Prosecution Application
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the difference between a parent application and a child application in patent law?

In patent law, the terms ‘parent application’ and ‘child application’ refer to the relationship between related patent applications. According to MPEP 201.02:

“The term parent application is used to refer to the immediate prior application from which a continuing application claims priority.”

“A child application is an application that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date from a parent application.”

Key differences:

• Parent application: The original or earlier-filed application
• Child application: A subsequent application that claims priority from the parent
• Child applications can be continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part
• The parent-child relationship establishes a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 120

Understanding this relationship is crucial for determining priority dates and the scope of patent protection in related applications.

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

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

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

Copendency is a crucial requirement when claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The MPEP defines copendency as follows:

“Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application.”

Key points about copendency:

• The later-filed application must be filed before the prior application patents, is abandoned, or proceedings are terminated
• If the prior application issues as a patent, the later-filed application can be filed on the same date the patent issues
• If the prior application is abandoned, the later-filed application must be filed before the abandonment
• Without copendency, the later-filed application cannot claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date

Applicants should be aware of the copendency requirement to ensure their benefit claims are valid.

Claiming priority to an international design application can provide significant benefits for nonprovisional applications. According to MPEP § 211.01(d):

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

This means that a nonprovisional application can claim the earlier filing date of an international design application, potentially providing an earlier priority date for the claimed invention.

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

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

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

Under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), a nonprovisional application can claim the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120. This provision allows applicants to establish an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional applications based on their international design applications.

As stated in the MPEP:

“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.”

This benefit claim can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

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

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

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

What is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120?

The ‘same invention’ requirement is a crucial aspect of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. MPEP 211.01(b) explains: The second application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the first application.

This means:

• The later application must disclose at least some part of the invention claimed in the prior application.
• The disclosure in the prior application must provide adequate support for the claims in the later application.
• New matter introduced in the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.

The ‘same invention’ does not require identical claims, but there must be a common disclosure that supports the claims in both applications. For more information, see MPEP 211.01(b) and 35 U.S.C. 120.

What happens if a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application?

If a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application, it does not affect the continuation application’s status. The MPEP states:

“The copendency requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 is met if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

This means that as long as the continuation application was filed while the prior application was still pending, subsequent abandonment of the prior application does not impact the continuation’s validity. The continuation application can still claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date.

For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01.

To learn more:

• continuation application
• copending application
• abandonment
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

For an international design application to be used as a basis for benefit claims, it must meet certain conditions. The MPEP specifies:

To obtain benefit of the filing date of a prior international design application designating the United States, the international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023.

This means that the international design application must have a valid filing date as determined by the regulations set forth in 37 CFR 1.1023. These regulations outline the requirements for establishing a filing date for international design applications, which typically include submitting the necessary documents and fees to the International Bureau or an appropriate office.

Additionally, the application claiming benefit must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, which include proper copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• filing date
• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

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.

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).

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 a national application to claim the benefit of a prior international application designating the United States, certain conditions must be met. MPEP 211.01(c) outlines these conditions, referencing 35 U.S.C. 365(c) and 35 U.S.C. 120:

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

The key conditions include:

• The international application must designate the United States
• The national application must be filed before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the international application
• The national application must contain a specific reference to the international application
• The international application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)

Additionally, the MPEP states:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

Meeting these conditions allows applicants to claim the earlier filing date of the international application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

To learn more:

• benefit claim
• international application
• national application
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

The method for including a benefit claim in a patent application depends on the filing date:

• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS).
• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference must be included in an application data sheet (ADS).

The MPEP states: “If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.”

Additionally, 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.

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

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

How does the AIA FITF system affect the prior-filed application requirements?

The America Invents Act (AIA) First Inventor to File (FITF) system has introduced some changes to the prior-filed application requirements. The MPEP explains:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) require that the prior-filed application to which benefit is claimed must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor.”

Key points to note:

• The prior application must name at least one common inventor with the later-filed application.
• This requirement applies to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
• For applications filed before this date, the prior application must name the inventor(s) named in the later-filed application.

These changes ensure that the benefit claim aligns with the FITF system’s focus on the first inventor to file. For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01 and USPTO AIA FITF Guidance.

To learn more:

• AIA
• FITF
• prior-filed application
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120 without requiring a separate statement. Key points include:

• The CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120
• No amendment to the specification or application data sheet is needed to maintain the benefit claim
• The benefit claim extends to all applications in a chain of CPAs

As stated in the MPEP: 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. No further amendment to the specification of the CPA nor a reference in the CPA’s application data sheet is required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 37 CFR 1.78(d) to identify or reference the prior application, as well as any other application assigned the application number of the prior application (e.g., in instances in which a CPA is the last in a chain of CPAs).

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

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

How does a continuing application claim benefit to a prior-filed international application?

A continuing application can claim benefit to a prior-filed international application that designates the United States. The MPEP 211.01(b) states:

‘A nonprovisional application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.’

To claim this benefit, the following conditions must be met:

• The international application must designate the United States
• It must be filed on or after November 29, 2000
• The benefit claim must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78
• The continuing application must be filed while the international application is pending before the USPTO or within the time period set in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)

It’s important to note that the benefit claim is to the international application itself, not to its national stage in the United States.

To learn more:

• continuing application
• international application
• benefit claim
• PCT
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

35 U.S.C. 365(c) is a crucial provision for claiming the benefit of an international application’s filing date in a subsequent national application. As explained in MPEP 211.01(c):

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an international application in a later-filed U.S. national application, provided they meet the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120. One key condition is timing, as the MPEP notes:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

This means that the national application must be filed while the international application is still pending to claim its benefit.

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).

Yes, a divisional application can claim priority to its parent application. This is one of the key benefits of filing a divisional application. According to MPEP 201.06:

‘A divisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.’

This means that the divisional application:

• Retains the priority date of the parent application for the subject matter disclosed in the parent
• Can claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c)
• Must include a specific reference to the parent application in its application data sheet (ADS)

It’s important to note that the divisional application must be filed while the parent application is still pending to claim this benefit.

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

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

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

Can a continuation-in-part application claim benefit from an international application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit from an international application, but there are specific requirements and limitations. The MPEP 211.01(c) states:

A U.S. national application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.

However, it’s crucial to understand that for a CIP application, the benefit claim is limited to the subject matter that was disclosed in the international application. Any new matter added in the CIP would not receive the benefit of the international application’s filing date. Additionally, the CIP must meet all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, including copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• Continuation-in-part
• International application
• Benefit claim
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

Can a continuation-in-part (CIP) application claim benefit to multiple prior applications?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit to multiple prior applications, provided certain conditions are met. The MPEP states:

“An applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of one or more prior applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a later-filed application … if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

However, it’s important to note that for a CIP application:

• New matter in the CIP will only get the benefit of the CIP’s filing date.
• Matter disclosed in the prior application(s) can claim the earlier filing date(s).
• Each claim in the CIP is evaluated separately to determine which filing date it is entitled to.

For more details, see MPEP 211.01 and MPEP 201.08.

To learn more:

• continuation-in-part
• CIP
• multiple prior applications
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

Amendments to refer to Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) as continuation or divisional applications are not allowed because they are unnecessary and can potentially cause confusion. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 explains:

“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 the CPA itself already serves as the legally required reference to the prior application. Adding additional references through amendments is redundant and could potentially lead to inconsistencies or misinterpretations in the patent record.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference requirement under 35 U.S.C. 120 is satisfied by the CPA request itself. According to MPEP § 201.06(d):

“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 request, it automatically serves as the required reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120. No additional amendments or references in the specification are necessary to establish this connection.

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.

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.

The legal basis for denying amendments to Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) specifications that attempt to reference prior applications stems from both federal regulations and patent law. Specifically:

• 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7): This regulation establishes that a CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
• 35 U.S.C. 120: This statute outlines the requirements for claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States.

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. Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the prior application and any such amendment shall be denied entry.

This means that the CPA filing itself legally establishes the necessary connection to the prior application, making any specification amendment both redundant and impermissible.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

What is the difference between a parent application and a child application in patent law?

In patent law, the terms ‘parent application’ and ‘child application’ refer to the relationship between related patent applications. According to MPEP 201.02:

“The term parent application is used to refer to the immediate prior application from which a continuing application claims priority.”

“A child application is an application that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date from a parent application.”

Key differences:

• Parent application: The original or earlier-filed application
• Child application: A subsequent application that claims priority from the parent
• Child applications can be continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part
• The parent-child relationship establishes a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 120

Understanding this relationship is crucial for determining priority dates and the scope of patent protection in related applications.

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

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

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

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 Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120 without requiring a separate statement. Key points include:

• The CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120
• No amendment to the specification or application data sheet is needed to maintain the benefit claim
• The benefit claim extends to all applications in a chain of CPAs

As stated in the MPEP: 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. No further amendment to the specification of the CPA nor a reference in the CPA’s application data sheet is required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 37 CFR 1.78(d) to identify or reference the prior application, as well as any other application assigned the application number of the prior application (e.g., in instances in which a CPA is the last in a chain of CPAs).

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

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

Yes, a divisional application can claim priority to its parent application. This is one of the key benefits of filing a divisional application. According to MPEP 201.06:

‘A divisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.’

This means that the divisional application:

• Retains the priority date of the parent application for the subject matter disclosed in the parent
• Can claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c)
• Must include a specific reference to the parent application in its application data sheet (ADS)

It’s important to note that the divisional application must be filed while the parent application is still pending to claim this benefit.

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

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

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

Copendency is a crucial requirement when claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The MPEP defines copendency as follows:

“Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application.”

Key points about copendency:

• The later-filed application must be filed before the prior application patents, is abandoned, or proceedings are terminated
• If the prior application issues as a patent, the later-filed application can be filed on the same date the patent issues
• If the prior application is abandoned, the later-filed application must be filed before the abandonment
• Without copendency, the later-filed application cannot claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date

Applicants should be aware of the copendency requirement to ensure their benefit claims are valid.

Claiming priority to an international design application can provide significant benefits for nonprovisional applications. According to MPEP § 211.01(d):

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

This means that a nonprovisional application can claim the earlier filing date of an international design application, potentially providing an earlier priority date for the claimed invention.

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

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

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

Under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), a nonprovisional application can claim the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120. This provision allows applicants to establish an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional applications based on their international design applications.

As stated in the MPEP:

“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.”

This benefit claim can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

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

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

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

What is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120?

The ‘same invention’ requirement is a crucial aspect of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. MPEP 211.01(b) explains: The second application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the first application.

This means:

• The later application must disclose at least some part of the invention claimed in the prior application.
• The disclosure in the prior application must provide adequate support for the claims in the later application.
• New matter introduced in the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.

The ‘same invention’ does not require identical claims, but there must be a common disclosure that supports the claims in both applications. For more information, see MPEP 211.01(b) and 35 U.S.C. 120.

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).

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.

The method for including a benefit claim in a patent application depends on the filing date:

• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS).
• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference must be included in an application data sheet (ADS).

The MPEP states: “If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.”

Additionally, 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.

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

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

35 U.S.C. 365(c) is a crucial provision for claiming the benefit of an international application’s filing date in a subsequent national application. As explained in MPEP 211.01(c):

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an international application in a later-filed U.S. national application, provided they meet the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120. One key condition is timing, as the MPEP notes:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

This means that the national application must be filed while the international application is still pending to claim its benefit.

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).

Amendments to refer to Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) as continuation or divisional applications are not allowed because they are unnecessary and can potentially cause confusion. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 explains:

“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 the CPA itself already serves as the legally required reference to the prior application. Adding additional references through amendments is redundant and could potentially lead to inconsistencies or misinterpretations in the patent record.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference requirement under 35 U.S.C. 120 is satisfied by the CPA request itself. According to MPEP § 201.06(d):

“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 request, it automatically serves as the required reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120. No additional amendments or references in the specification are necessary to establish this connection.

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.

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.

The legal basis for denying amendments to Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) specifications that attempt to reference prior applications stems from both federal regulations and patent law. Specifically:

• 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7): This regulation establishes that a CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
• 35 U.S.C. 120: This statute outlines the requirements for claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States.

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. Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the prior application and any such amendment shall be denied entry.

This means that the CPA filing itself legally establishes the necessary connection to the prior application, making any specification amendment both redundant and impermissible.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

The legal basis for claiming the benefit of an international design application designating the United States is found in 35 U.S.C. 386(c). This statute allows a nonprovisional application to claim the benefit of a prior international design application, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120.

As stated in the MPEP: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States. This means that applicants can potentially secure an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional application by claiming the benefit of a previously filed international design application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• nonprovisional application
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?

The filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined based on when it is filed. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed. A request for a CPA is a specific reference to the prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means that the CPA’s filing date is the day when the separate request for a CPA is submitted, not the filing date of the prior application. It’s important to note that this request must specifically reference the prior application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 120.

To learn more:

• CPA
• filing date
• Continued Prosecution Application
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the difference between a parent application and a child application in patent law?

In patent law, the terms ‘parent application’ and ‘child application’ refer to the relationship between related patent applications. According to MPEP 201.02:

“The term parent application is used to refer to the immediate prior application from which a continuing application claims priority.”

“A child application is an application that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date from a parent application.”

Key differences:

• Parent application: The original or earlier-filed application
• Child application: A subsequent application that claims priority from the parent
• Child applications can be continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part
• The parent-child relationship establishes a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 120

Understanding this relationship is crucial for determining priority dates and the scope of patent protection in related applications.

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

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

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

Copendency is a crucial requirement when claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The MPEP defines copendency as follows:

“Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application.”

Key points about copendency:

• The later-filed application must be filed before the prior application patents, is abandoned, or proceedings are terminated
• If the prior application issues as a patent, the later-filed application can be filed on the same date the patent issues
• If the prior application is abandoned, the later-filed application must be filed before the abandonment
• Without copendency, the later-filed application cannot claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date

Applicants should be aware of the copendency requirement to ensure their benefit claims are valid.

Claiming priority to an international design application can provide significant benefits for nonprovisional applications. According to MPEP § 211.01(d):

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

This means that a nonprovisional application can claim the earlier filing date of an international design application, potentially providing an earlier priority date for the claimed invention.

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

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

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

Under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), a nonprovisional application can claim the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120. This provision allows applicants to establish an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional applications based on their international design applications.

As stated in the MPEP:

“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.”

This benefit claim can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

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

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

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

What is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120?

The ‘same invention’ requirement is a crucial aspect of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. MPEP 211.01(b) explains: The second application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the first application.

This means:

• The later application must disclose at least some part of the invention claimed in the prior application.
• The disclosure in the prior application must provide adequate support for the claims in the later application.
• New matter introduced in the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.

The ‘same invention’ does not require identical claims, but there must be a common disclosure that supports the claims in both applications. For more information, see MPEP 211.01(b) and 35 U.S.C. 120.

What happens if a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application?

If a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application, it does not affect the continuation application’s status. The MPEP states:

“The copendency requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 is met if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

This means that as long as the continuation application was filed while the prior application was still pending, subsequent abandonment of the prior application does not impact the continuation’s validity. The continuation application can still claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date.

For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01.

To learn more:

• continuation application
• copending application
• abandonment
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

For an international design application to be used as a basis for benefit claims, it must meet certain conditions. The MPEP specifies:

To obtain benefit of the filing date of a prior international design application designating the United States, the international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023.

This means that the international design application must have a valid filing date as determined by the regulations set forth in 37 CFR 1.1023. These regulations outline the requirements for establishing a filing date for international design applications, which typically include submitting the necessary documents and fees to the International Bureau or an appropriate office.

Additionally, the application claiming benefit must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, which include proper copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• filing date
• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

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.

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).

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 a national application to claim the benefit of a prior international application designating the United States, certain conditions must be met. MPEP 211.01(c) outlines these conditions, referencing 35 U.S.C. 365(c) and 35 U.S.C. 120:

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

The key conditions include:

• The international application must designate the United States
• The national application must be filed before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the international application
• The national application must contain a specific reference to the international application
• The international application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)

Additionally, the MPEP states:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

Meeting these conditions allows applicants to claim the earlier filing date of the international application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

To learn more:

• benefit claim
• international application
• national application
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

The method for including a benefit claim in a patent application depends on the filing date:

• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS).
• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference must be included in an application data sheet (ADS).

The MPEP states: “If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.”

Additionally, 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.

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

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

How does the AIA FITF system affect the prior-filed application requirements?

The America Invents Act (AIA) First Inventor to File (FITF) system has introduced some changes to the prior-filed application requirements. The MPEP explains:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) require that the prior-filed application to which benefit is claimed must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor.”

Key points to note:

• The prior application must name at least one common inventor with the later-filed application.
• This requirement applies to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
• For applications filed before this date, the prior application must name the inventor(s) named in the later-filed application.

These changes ensure that the benefit claim aligns with the FITF system’s focus on the first inventor to file. For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01 and USPTO AIA FITF Guidance.

To learn more:

• AIA
• FITF
• prior-filed application
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

Restriction requirements can affect joint inventorship in patent applications. The MPEP explains:

If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, restriction may be required with the possible result of a necessity to change the inventorship named in the application if the elected invention was not the invention of all the originally named inventors.

In such cases:

• A ‘divisional’ application complying with 35 U.S.C. 120 would be entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the original application.
• Examiners should remind applicants to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 if an invention is elected and claims to the invention of one or more inventors are canceled.

This process ensures that the correct inventors are named for each distinct invention in the case of a restriction requirement.

To learn more:

• restriction requirement
• joint inventorship
• divisional application
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120 without requiring a separate statement. Key points include:

• The CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120
• No amendment to the specification or application data sheet is needed to maintain the benefit claim
• The benefit claim extends to all applications in a chain of CPAs

As stated in the MPEP: 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. No further amendment to the specification of the CPA nor a reference in the CPA’s application data sheet is required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 37 CFR 1.78(d) to identify or reference the prior application, as well as any other application assigned the application number of the prior application (e.g., in instances in which a CPA is the last in a chain of CPAs).

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

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

How does a continuing application claim benefit to a prior-filed international application?

A continuing application can claim benefit to a prior-filed international application that designates the United States. The MPEP 211.01(b) states:

‘A nonprovisional application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.’

To claim this benefit, the following conditions must be met:

• The international application must designate the United States
• It must be filed on or after November 29, 2000
• The benefit claim must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78
• The continuing application must be filed while the international application is pending before the USPTO or within the time period set in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)

It’s important to note that the benefit claim is to the international application itself, not to its national stage in the United States.

To learn more:

• continuing application
• international application
• benefit claim
• PCT
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

35 U.S.C. 365(c) is a crucial provision for claiming the benefit of an international application’s filing date in a subsequent national application. As explained in MPEP 211.01(c):

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an international application in a later-filed U.S. national application, provided they meet the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120. One key condition is timing, as the MPEP notes:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

This means that the national application must be filed while the international application is still pending to claim its benefit.

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).

Yes, a divisional application can claim priority to its parent application. This is one of the key benefits of filing a divisional application. According to MPEP 201.06:

‘A divisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.’

This means that the divisional application:

• Retains the priority date of the parent application for the subject matter disclosed in the parent
• Can claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c)
• Must include a specific reference to the parent application in its application data sheet (ADS)

It’s important to note that the divisional application must be filed while the parent application is still pending to claim this benefit.

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

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

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

Can a continuation-in-part application claim benefit from an international application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit from an international application, but there are specific requirements and limitations. The MPEP 211.01(c) states:

A U.S. national application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.

However, it’s crucial to understand that for a CIP application, the benefit claim is limited to the subject matter that was disclosed in the international application. Any new matter added in the CIP would not receive the benefit of the international application’s filing date. Additionally, the CIP must meet all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, including copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• Continuation-in-part
• International application
• Benefit claim
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

Can a continuation-in-part (CIP) application claim benefit to multiple prior applications?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit to multiple prior applications, provided certain conditions are met. The MPEP states:

“An applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of one or more prior applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a later-filed application … if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

However, it’s important to note that for a CIP application:

• New matter in the CIP will only get the benefit of the CIP’s filing date.
• Matter disclosed in the prior application(s) can claim the earlier filing date(s).
• Each claim in the CIP is evaluated separately to determine which filing date it is entitled to.

For more details, see MPEP 211.01 and MPEP 201.08.

To learn more:

• continuation-in-part
• CIP
• multiple prior applications
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

Amendments to refer to Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) as continuation or divisional applications are not allowed because they are unnecessary and can potentially cause confusion. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 explains:

“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 the CPA itself already serves as the legally required reference to the prior application. Adding additional references through amendments is redundant and could potentially lead to inconsistencies or misinterpretations in the patent record.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference requirement under 35 U.S.C. 120 is satisfied by the CPA request itself. According to MPEP § 201.06(d):

“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 request, it automatically serves as the required reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120. No additional amendments or references in the specification are necessary to establish this connection.

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.

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.

The legal basis for denying amendments to Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) specifications that attempt to reference prior applications stems from both federal regulations and patent law. Specifically:

• 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7): This regulation establishes that a CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
• 35 U.S.C. 120: This statute outlines the requirements for claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States.

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. Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the prior application and any such amendment shall be denied entry.

This means that the CPA filing itself legally establishes the necessary connection to the prior application, making any specification amendment both redundant and impermissible.

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 patent law, visit: patent law.

The legal basis for claiming the benefit of an international design application designating the United States is found in 35 U.S.C. 386(c). This statute allows a nonprovisional application to claim the benefit of a prior international design application, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120.

As stated in the MPEP: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States. This means that applicants can potentially secure an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional application by claiming the benefit of a previously filed international design application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• nonprovisional application
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?

The filing date for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined based on when it is filed. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed. A request for a CPA is a specific reference to the prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120.

This means that the CPA’s filing date is the day when the separate request for a CPA is submitted, not the filing date of the prior application. It’s important to note that this request must specifically reference the prior application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 120.

To learn more:

• CPA
• filing date
• Continued Prosecution Application
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

What is the difference between a parent application and a child application in patent law?

In patent law, the terms ‘parent application’ and ‘child application’ refer to the relationship between related patent applications. According to MPEP 201.02:

“The term parent application is used to refer to the immediate prior application from which a continuing application claims priority.”

“A child application is an application that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date from a parent application.”

Key differences:

• Parent application: The original or earlier-filed application
• Child application: A subsequent application that claims priority from the parent
• Child applications can be continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part
• The parent-child relationship establishes a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 120

Understanding this relationship is crucial for determining priority dates and the scope of patent protection in related applications.

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

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

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

Copendency is a crucial requirement when claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The MPEP defines copendency as follows:

“Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application.”

Key points about copendency:

• The later-filed application must be filed before the prior application patents, is abandoned, or proceedings are terminated
• If the prior application issues as a patent, the later-filed application can be filed on the same date the patent issues
• If the prior application is abandoned, the later-filed application must be filed before the abandonment
• Without copendency, the later-filed application cannot claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date

Applicants should be aware of the copendency requirement to ensure their benefit claims are valid.

Claiming priority to an international design application can provide significant benefits for nonprovisional applications. According to MPEP § 211.01(d):

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

This means that a nonprovisional application can claim the earlier filing date of an international design application, potentially providing an earlier priority date for the claimed invention.

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

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

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

Under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), a nonprovisional application can claim the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States, subject to the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120. This provision allows applicants to establish an earlier effective filing date for their nonprovisional applications based on their international design applications.

As stated in the MPEP:

“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.”

This benefit claim can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

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

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

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

What is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120?

The ‘same invention’ requirement is a crucial aspect of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. MPEP 211.01(b) explains: The second application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the first application.

This means:

• The later application must disclose at least some part of the invention claimed in the prior application.
• The disclosure in the prior application must provide adequate support for the claims in the later application.
• New matter introduced in the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.

The ‘same invention’ does not require identical claims, but there must be a common disclosure that supports the claims in both applications. For more information, see MPEP 211.01(b) and 35 U.S.C. 120.

What happens if a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application?

If a copending application is abandoned after filing a continuation application, it does not affect the continuation application’s status. The MPEP states:

“The copendency requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 is met if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

This means that as long as the continuation application was filed while the prior application was still pending, subsequent abandonment of the prior application does not impact the continuation’s validity. The continuation application can still claim the benefit of the prior application’s filing date.

For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01.

To learn more:

• continuation application
• copending application
• abandonment
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

For an international design application to be used as a basis for benefit claims, it must meet certain conditions. The MPEP specifies:

To obtain benefit of the filing date of a prior international design application designating the United States, the international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023.

This means that the international design application must have a valid filing date as determined by the regulations set forth in 37 CFR 1.1023. These regulations outline the requirements for establishing a filing date for international design applications, which typically include submitting the necessary documents and fees to the International Bureau or an appropriate office.

Additionally, the application claiming benefit must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, which include proper copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• international design application
• benefit claim
• filing date
• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 37 CFR 1.1023
• 35 U.S.C. 120

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.

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).

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 a national application to claim the benefit of a prior international application designating the United States, certain conditions must be met. MPEP 211.01(c) outlines these conditions, referencing 35 U.S.C. 365(c) and 35 U.S.C. 120:

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

The key conditions include:

• The international application must designate the United States
• The national application must be filed before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the international application
• The national application must contain a specific reference to the international application
• The international application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)

Additionally, the MPEP states:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

Meeting these conditions allows applicants to claim the earlier filing date of the international application, which can be crucial for establishing priority and overcoming prior art references.

To learn more:

• benefit claim
• international application
• national application
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 120

The method for including a benefit claim in a patent application depends on the filing date:

• For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS).
• For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference must be included in an application data sheet (ADS).

The MPEP states: “If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.”

Additionally, 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.

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

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

How does the AIA FITF system affect the prior-filed application requirements?

The America Invents Act (AIA) First Inventor to File (FITF) system has introduced some changes to the prior-filed application requirements. The MPEP explains:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) require that the prior-filed application to which benefit is claimed must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor.”

Key points to note:

• The prior application must name at least one common inventor with the later-filed application.
• This requirement applies to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
• For applications filed before this date, the prior application must name the inventor(s) named in the later-filed application.

These changes ensure that the benefit claim aligns with the FITF system’s focus on the first inventor to file. For more information, refer to MPEP 211.01 and USPTO AIA FITF Guidance.

To learn more:

• AIA
• FITF
• prior-filed application
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

Restriction requirements can affect joint inventorship in patent applications. The MPEP explains:

If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, restriction may be required with the possible result of a necessity to change the inventorship named in the application if the elected invention was not the invention of all the originally named inventors.

In such cases:

• A ‘divisional’ application complying with 35 U.S.C. 120 would be entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the original application.
• Examiners should remind applicants to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 if an invention is elected and claims to the invention of one or more inventors are canceled.

This process ensures that the correct inventors are named for each distinct invention in the case of a restriction requirement.

To learn more:

• restriction requirement
• joint inventorship
• divisional application
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120 without requiring a separate statement. Key points include:

• The CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120
• No amendment to the specification or application data sheet is needed to maintain the benefit claim
• The benefit claim extends to all applications in a chain of CPAs

As stated in the MPEP: 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. No further amendment to the specification of the CPA nor a reference in the CPA’s application data sheet is required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 37 CFR 1.78(d) to identify or reference the prior application, as well as any other application assigned the application number of the prior application (e.g., in instances in which a CPA is the last in a chain of CPAs).

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

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

How does a continuing application claim benefit to a prior-filed international application?

A continuing application can claim benefit to a prior-filed international application that designates the United States. The MPEP 211.01(b) states:

‘A nonprovisional application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.’

To claim this benefit, the following conditions must be met:

• The international application must designate the United States
• It must be filed on or after November 29, 2000
• The benefit claim must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78
• The continuing application must be filed while the international application is pending before the USPTO or within the time period set in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)

It’s important to note that the benefit claim is to the international application itself, not to its national stage in the United States.

To learn more:

• continuing application
• international application
• benefit claim
• PCT
• 35 U.S.C. 120

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120

35 U.S.C. 365(c) is a crucial provision for claiming the benefit of an international application’s filing date in a subsequent national application. As explained in MPEP 211.01(c):

The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that ‘[i]n accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,… a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.’

This provision allows applicants to claim the priority of an international application in a later-filed U.S. national application, provided they meet the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120. One key condition is timing, as the MPEP notes:

The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be ‘filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application….’

This means that the national application must be filed while the international application is still pending to claim its benefit.

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).

Yes, a divisional application can claim priority to its parent application. This is one of the key benefits of filing a divisional application. According to MPEP 201.06:

‘A divisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.’

This means that the divisional application:

• Retains the priority date of the parent application for the subject matter disclosed in the parent
• Can claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c)
• Must include a specific reference to the parent application in its application data sheet (ADS)

It’s important to note that the divisional application must be filed while the parent application is still pending to claim this benefit.

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

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

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

Can a continuation-in-part application claim benefit from an international application?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit from an international application, but there are specific requirements and limitations. The MPEP 211.01(c) states:

A U.S. national application may claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an international application designating the United States only if the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000.

However, it’s crucial to understand that for a CIP application, the benefit claim is limited to the subject matter that was disclosed in the international application. Any new matter added in the CIP would not receive the benefit of the international application’s filing date. Additionally, the CIP must meet all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, including copendency and specific reference to the earlier application.

To learn more:

• Continuation-in-part
• International application
• Benefit claim
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)

Can a continuation-in-part (CIP) application claim benefit to multiple prior applications?

Yes, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application can claim benefit to multiple prior applications, provided certain conditions are met. The MPEP states:

“An applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of one or more prior applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a later-filed application … if the later-filed application is filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.”

However, it’s important to note that for a CIP application:

• New matter in the CIP will only get the benefit of the CIP’s filing date.
• Matter disclosed in the prior application(s) can claim the earlier filing date(s).
• Each claim in the CIP is evaluated separately to determine which filing date it is entitled to.

For more details, see MPEP 211.01 and MPEP 201.08.

To learn more:

• continuation-in-part
• CIP
• multiple prior applications
• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 120
• 35 U.S.C. 121
• 35 U.S.C. 365(c)
• 35 U.S.C. 386(c)