Patent Law FAQ

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request to correct inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as soon as you realize there’s a need to add or remove an inventor. This should be done concurrently with or shortly after filing the CPA.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates:

Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

It’s important to file this request promptly to ensure that the correct inventorship is recorded for your application. Failure to do so may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application, which could potentially affect the validity of your patent if granted.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) whenever you need to add, remove, or change the order of inventors from the original application.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies even if you’ve identified the new inventor in the CPA filing documents.

It’s best to file the 37 CFR 1.48 request as soon as you realize there’s a need to correct the inventorship. This ensures that the correct inventors are associated with the application throughout the examination process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is acceptable when it meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP § 201, the examiner will use specific language to indicate acceptance:

The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.

It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design patent applications. For utility and plant applications, a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) would be used instead.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for specific types of applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is not available for utility and plant applications.

This means that CPAs are limited to:

• Design applications: Applications for design patents can be filed as CPAs.
• Continuation applications: These must be based on an earlier application of the same type (i.e., design).
• Divisional applications: These must also be based on an earlier design application.

It’s important to note that continuation-in-part (CIP) applications cannot be filed as CPAs. Additionally, utility and plant patent applications are no longer eligible for CPA practice since July 14, 2003.

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The examiner plays a crucial role in processing requests to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the examiner is responsible for acknowledging the receipt of the request and confirming that the inventorship has been corrected. The MPEP provides the following guidance for examiners:

“Examiner Note: 1. Use this form paragraph where a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.”

The examiner must verify that the request was submitted with the CPA filing and use the appropriate form paragraph to acknowledge the correction of inventorship. If the request is made after the CPA filing, the examiner must ensure it’s accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48, as per the MPEP instructions.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

The purpose of MPEP ¶ 2.33 is to provide guidance to patent examiners when they encounter a situation where a new inventor is identified in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. It states:

Use this form paragraph where a request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) identifies one or more inventors who were not named as inventors in the prior application on the filing date of the CPA.

This paragraph helps examiners address situations where applicants have named new inventors in a CPA without following the proper procedure. It reminds both examiners and applicants that a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48 is required to change inventorship, even in a CPA.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has a significant effect on the prior application. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘A request for a CPA expressly abandons the prior application as of the filing date of the request for the CPA.’

This means that:

• The prior application is automatically and expressly abandoned when the CPA is filed.
• The abandonment is effective as of the CPA filing date.
• Any claims or amendments in the prior application that were not entered are not carried over to the CPA.

It’s important to note that while the prior application is abandoned, the CPA is a continuation of that application, maintaining continuity for purposes such as priority claims and patent term calculations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of a patent application, but they have different uses and applications:

• CPAs are primarily used for design patent applications, as indicated in MPEP ¶ 2.30.
• RCEs are used for utility and plant patent applications. The MPEP states: “If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead).”

This distinction is important because it affects how patent examiners process and respond to these continuation requests.

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

A Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications is a procedure that allows for the correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. This request is specifically used to remove the name(s) of person(s) who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

This paragraph confirms that the USPTO recognizes and processes such requests when submitted with a CPA filing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. As stated in the MPEP, A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is called a ‘Continued Prosecution Application’ (CPA). CPAs allow applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application while retaining the benefit of the earlier filing date.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Continued Prosecution Application
• Design Patents
• Patent Application

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent application. It is governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, when a CPA is accepted, the examiner will use the following language:

“The request filed on [filing date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [parent application number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.”

This indicates that the CPA has been properly filed and prosecution will continue based on the parent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents. It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a previously filed design application by filing a request for continued examination. CPAs are governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d) and are only available for design applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed for design patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows an applicant to continue prosecution of a prior design application. As stated in the MPEP:

A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;

CPAs can only be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the prior application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Conditional Request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a filing made under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. However, it’s important to note that any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. This means that even if an applicant intends the request to be conditional, the USPTO will process it as a standard CPA request.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

What happens to the status of the prior application when filing a CPA?

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the status of the prior application changes. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing of a CPA is not a filing of a new application. Rather, a CPA is a continuation of the prior application and maintains the same application number as the prior application, i.e., the application number of the prior application is used as the application number for the CPA.

This means that:

• The prior application is not abandoned
• The CPA continues the examination process of the prior application
• The same application number is retained for the CPA

It’s important to note that while the CPA continues the examination, it is treated as a new application for all other purposes under the patent statute and rules.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

If the basic filing fee is not paid when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the USPTO will send a notice to the applicant. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘If the basic filing fee is not paid when the CPA is filed or within the time period set forth in a notice from the Office, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts in the CPA.’

This notice gives the applicant a chance to pay the fee and continue the application process. However, it’s important to note that failing to respond to this notice or pay the required fee within the specified time frame could result in the CPA being abandoned. It’s always best practice to submit all required fees at the time of filing to avoid potential delays or complications in the patent application process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on Notice to File Missing Parts, visit: Notice to File Missing Parts.

When an improper Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed, the USPTO’s response depends on the type of application and the nature of the impropriety:

• For utility or plant applications filed on or after July 14, 2003, an improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if possible
• If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements, it’s treated as an improper RCE
• For design applications, an improper CPA may be treated as a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in some circumstances
• The Office will not automatically convert an improper CPA to an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) without extenuating circumstances

The MPEP states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed.

Regarding treatment as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements: If the improper CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request lacks a submission or the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e), or the prosecution of the application is not closed), the Office treats the improper CPA as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run.

Examiners are instructed to notify supervisory staff if they discover an improper CPA has been processed: If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the Technology Center (TC) who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records as appropriate.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed after the issue fee has been paid, it will not be treated as a CPA. Instead, it will be processed as follows:

• For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.
• For applications filed before May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as an improper application and will not be processed.

As stated in MPEP 201.06(d): “If an application is filed on or after May 29, 2000, the filing of a CPA is not permitted after payment of the issue fee. In such a case, the Office will treat the improper CPA as an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, provided that the application is a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995.”

It’s important to note that this treatment as an RCE is only possible for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. For other types of applications or those filed before this date, the improper CPA filing will not be processed, and the applicant may need to consider other options, such as filing a reissue application if the patent has already issued.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

The signature requirements for filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and important. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be signed by a person authorized to prosecute the application, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(b).

This means that:

• The CPA must be signed by someone authorized to prosecute the application.
• Typically, this would be the applicant or the applicant’s patent attorney or agent.
• There are exceptions outlined in 37 CFR 1.33(b), which allow for certain communications to be signed by other parties in specific circumstances.

It’s crucial to ensure that the proper signature is provided when filing a CPA to avoid potential issues with the application’s acceptance or processing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), there are specific rules regarding benefit claims. The MPEP states:

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), no amendment may delete the specific reference to a prior application assigned the same application number.

This is because in a CPA:

• The request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request.
• A specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and should not be made.

Therefore, when dealing with a CPA, it’s crucial to understand that the benefit claim to the prior application with the same application number is inherent in the CPA request itself and cannot be deleted. Any additional benefit claims would need to follow the standard procedures for adding benefit claims after filing.

To learn more:

• CPA
• continued prosecution application
• benefit claim
• patent application

The filing requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are as follows:

• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted;
  • Abandonment of the prior application; or
  • Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
• The CPA must include a request to initiate proceedings under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
• The prior application must be a design application eligible for CPA practice.

As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): ‘A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).’

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

What are the filing date requirements for a CPA?

The filing date requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and must be adhered to. 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 paper filing, even though it may be submitted via EFS-Web.

Key points about CPA filing date requirements include:

• The CPA must be filed before the payment of the issue fee for the prior application
• It must be filed before abandonment of the prior application
• The request for a CPA must be made on a separate paper
• The filing date is based on when the CPA request is received, not when other application documents are submitted

It’s crucial to meet these requirements to ensure the CPA is properly filed and receives the correct filing date.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is generally maintained from the prior application. However, if there’s a need to add or change inventors, specific procedures must be followed.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: “Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application.”

This means that if you want to add or change inventors in a CPA, you must file a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48, which outlines the procedure for correction of inventorship in patent applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is directly related to the parent application. As stated in MPEP 201.06(d):

‘The inventorship in a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is the same as in the prior application.’

This means that when you file a CPA, you are essentially continuing the same application with the same inventors. However, it’s important to note that if there are any changes to inventorship required, they must be made through the appropriate procedures, such as filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Any such changes should be made promptly to ensure the accuracy of the patent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has important implications for its priority claim. 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 not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8.

This means that:

• The CPA’s filing date is the actual date the USPTO receives the CPA request.
• This date cannot be backdated using a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission.
• The CPA automatically receives the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
• Any foreign priority or domestic benefit claims made in the prior application are automatically carried forward to the CPA.

It’s crucial to understand that while the CPA maintains the priority claims of the prior application, its actual filing date is the date of receipt by the USPTO, which can affect certain statutory deadlines and prior art considerations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) generally carries over from the prior application, but there are some important considerations:

• The inventive entity of the CPA is automatically the same as the prior application unless a statement is filed requesting deletion of inventors
• A statement requesting deletion of inventors must be filed with the CPA request and signed by a person authorized under 37 CFR 1.33(b)
• New inventors cannot be added simply by naming them in the CPA transmittal letter or a new oath/declaration
• To add new inventors, a request under 37 CFR 1.48 must be filed, including the required fee

The MPEP states: The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the CPA.

If an inventor is named in the CPA who was not in the prior application, the examiner will notify the applicant using form paragraph 2.33:

It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as is required, was filed to correct the inventorship.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

Confidentiality in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) is handled differently from standard applications. Filing a CPA includes a waiver of confidentiality to some extent:

• The CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality under 35 U.S.C. 122
• This waiver allows public access to both the prior application and any continuing applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Access is limited to those entitled under 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain information about the applications

The MPEP states: A CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public who is entitled under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(d) may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning, the other application(s) in the application file.

This means that if someone is entitled to access information about either the prior application or the CPA, they may be given similar access to information about both applications. This is different from the standard confidentiality provisions for pending applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

According to MPEP § 201, specifically paragraph 2.30, an examiner notifies an applicant about a Continued Prosecution Application’s (CPA) acceptance in the first Office action of the CPA. The MPEP states:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a request for a CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA.

This notification is crucial because it confirms the establishment of the CPA and provides important information to the applicant about the status of their application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a unique type of continuing application that has specific limitations. According to MPEP 201.02:

A ‘continued prosecution application’ (CPA) is a continuation or divisional application for an invention disclosed in a prior nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d). A CPA can only be filed in a design application.

Key differences of CPAs compared to other continuing applications:

• Limited to design applications: CPAs can only be filed for design patents, not utility or plant patents.
• Automatic abandonment: Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application.
• Simplified filing: CPAs can be filed with fewer formalities than other continuing applications.
• Examination continuation: The examination process continues from where it left off in the parent application.

It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these types of applications, applicants must use other forms of continuing applications, such as RCEs (Requests for Continued Examination).

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Benefit claims in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have some unique characteristics:

• A CPA automatically includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior application
• No additional amendment to the specification or application data sheet is required to claim benefit
• A CPA is considered to reference every application in the chain with the same application number
• Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) from the parent application automatically carry over to the CPA

The MPEP states: 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).

It’s important to note that applicants cannot delete benefit claims to certain applications in a chain of CPAs. The MPEP clarifies: Therefore, regardless of whether an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the benefit of a CPA is, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4), a claim to every application assigned the application number of such CPA. In addition, applicants will not be permitted to delete such a benefit claim as to certain applications assigned that application number (e.g., for patent term purposes).

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

To delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications, you must submit a statement requesting the deletion along with the CPA filing. The MPEP states:

“Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2]. The inventorship has been corrected as requested.”

It’s important to note that this process is specific to CPA filings for design applications. If you need to delete a named inventor after the CPA has been filed, you must follow a different procedure, as outlined in MPEP ¶ 2.32: “Any request to delete a named inventor in a CPA filed after the CPA is filed must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48.”

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of an application, but they have significant differences:

• CPAs are only available for design patent applications, while RCEs can be used for utility, plant, and design applications
• CPAs result in a new application with the same application number, while RCEs continue examination of the same application
• CPAs can only be filed before payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings; RCEs can be filed after payment of the issue fee with a petition
• CPAs automatically abandon the prior application, while RCEs do not

The MPEP states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Henceforth, applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

It’s important to note that if an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application on or after July 14, 2003, it may be treated as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

Yes, the inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can differ from the original application, but only if a proper request is filed and approved.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application. This implies that changes to inventorship are possible, but they require specific action.

To change the inventorship, you must file a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies whether you’re adding, removing, or changing the order of inventors. Without this formal request, the inventorship will remain the same as in the original application, even if new inventors are listed on the CPA filing documents.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

Amendments can be made when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), but there are important restrictions and considerations:

• Any changes must be made as an amendment to the prior application as it existed before filing the CPA
• No new matter can be introduced in a CPA
• Preliminary amendments filed with a CPA are generally entered, but could be denied entry if they unduly interfere with examination
• New specifications filed with a CPA request are treated as substitute specifications and must comply with 37 CFR 1.125

The MPEP states: Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application.

Regarding preliminary amendments, the MPEP advises: Applicants are also encouraged to file all preliminary amendments at the time of filing a CPA because the entry of any preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the CPA could be denied under 37 CFR 1.115 if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action.

If more time is needed to prepare amendments, applicants can request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) at the time of filing the CPA.

For more information on amendments, visit: amendments.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Yes, a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for design applications. In fact, as of September 8, 2000, CPAs are only available for design applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. CPAs can only be filed for design applications.’

This means that for utility and plant patent applications, other forms of continuing applications such as RCEs (Request for Continued Examination) or continuation applications under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must be used instead of CPAs.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

No, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA). The MPEP explicitly states: “A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

Continuation-in-part applications may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). This is an important distinction to remember when considering different types of patent application filings.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request to correct inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as soon as you realize there’s a need to add or remove an inventor. This should be done concurrently with or shortly after filing the CPA.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates:

Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

It’s important to file this request promptly to ensure that the correct inventorship is recorded for your application. Failure to do so may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application, which could potentially affect the validity of your patent if granted.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) whenever you need to add, remove, or change the order of inventors from the original application.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies even if you’ve identified the new inventor in the CPA filing documents.

It’s best to file the 37 CFR 1.48 request as soon as you realize there’s a need to correct the inventorship. This ensures that the correct inventors are associated with the application throughout the examination process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is acceptable when it meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP § 201, the examiner will use specific language to indicate acceptance:

The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.

It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design patent applications. For utility and plant applications, a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) would be used instead.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for specific types of applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is not available for utility and plant applications.

This means that CPAs are limited to:

• Design applications: Applications for design patents can be filed as CPAs.
• Continuation applications: These must be based on an earlier application of the same type (i.e., design).
• Divisional applications: These must also be based on an earlier design application.

It’s important to note that continuation-in-part (CIP) applications cannot be filed as CPAs. Additionally, utility and plant patent applications are no longer eligible for CPA practice since July 14, 2003.

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The examiner plays a crucial role in processing requests to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the examiner is responsible for acknowledging the receipt of the request and confirming that the inventorship has been corrected. The MPEP provides the following guidance for examiners:

“Examiner Note: 1. Use this form paragraph where a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.”

The examiner must verify that the request was submitted with the CPA filing and use the appropriate form paragraph to acknowledge the correction of inventorship. If the request is made after the CPA filing, the examiner must ensure it’s accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48, as per the MPEP instructions.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

The purpose of MPEP ¶ 2.33 is to provide guidance to patent examiners when they encounter a situation where a new inventor is identified in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. It states:

Use this form paragraph where a request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) identifies one or more inventors who were not named as inventors in the prior application on the filing date of the CPA.

This paragraph helps examiners address situations where applicants have named new inventors in a CPA without following the proper procedure. It reminds both examiners and applicants that a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48 is required to change inventorship, even in a CPA.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has a significant effect on the prior application. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘A request for a CPA expressly abandons the prior application as of the filing date of the request for the CPA.’

This means that:

• The prior application is automatically and expressly abandoned when the CPA is filed.
• The abandonment is effective as of the CPA filing date.
• Any claims or amendments in the prior application that were not entered are not carried over to the CPA.

It’s important to note that while the prior application is abandoned, the CPA is a continuation of that application, maintaining continuity for purposes such as priority claims and patent term calculations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of a patent application, but they have different uses and applications:

• CPAs are primarily used for design patent applications, as indicated in MPEP ¶ 2.30.
• RCEs are used for utility and plant patent applications. The MPEP states: “If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead).”

This distinction is important because it affects how patent examiners process and respond to these continuation requests.

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

A Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications is a procedure that allows for the correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. This request is specifically used to remove the name(s) of person(s) who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

This paragraph confirms that the USPTO recognizes and processes such requests when submitted with a CPA filing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent application. It is governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, when a CPA is accepted, the examiner will use the following language:

“The request filed on [filing date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [parent application number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.”

This indicates that the CPA has been properly filed and prosecution will continue based on the parent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents. It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a previously filed design application by filing a request for continued examination. CPAs are governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d) and are only available for design applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed for design patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows an applicant to continue prosecution of a prior design application. As stated in the MPEP:

A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;

CPAs can only be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the prior application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Conditional Request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a filing made under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. However, it’s important to note that any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. This means that even if an applicant intends the request to be conditional, the USPTO will process it as a standard CPA request.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

What happens to the status of the prior application when filing a CPA?

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the status of the prior application changes. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing of a CPA is not a filing of a new application. Rather, a CPA is a continuation of the prior application and maintains the same application number as the prior application, i.e., the application number of the prior application is used as the application number for the CPA.

This means that:

• The prior application is not abandoned
• The CPA continues the examination process of the prior application
• The same application number is retained for the CPA

It’s important to note that while the CPA continues the examination, it is treated as a new application for all other purposes under the patent statute and rules.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

If the basic filing fee is not paid when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the USPTO will send a notice to the applicant. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘If the basic filing fee is not paid when the CPA is filed or within the time period set forth in a notice from the Office, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts in the CPA.’

This notice gives the applicant a chance to pay the fee and continue the application process. However, it’s important to note that failing to respond to this notice or pay the required fee within the specified time frame could result in the CPA being abandoned. It’s always best practice to submit all required fees at the time of filing to avoid potential delays or complications in the patent application process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on Notice to File Missing Parts, visit: Notice to File Missing Parts.

When an improper Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed, the USPTO’s response depends on the type of application and the nature of the impropriety:

• For utility or plant applications filed on or after July 14, 2003, an improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if possible
• If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements, it’s treated as an improper RCE
• For design applications, an improper CPA may be treated as a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in some circumstances
• The Office will not automatically convert an improper CPA to an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) without extenuating circumstances

The MPEP states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed.

Regarding treatment as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements: If the improper CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request lacks a submission or the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e), or the prosecution of the application is not closed), the Office treats the improper CPA as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run.

Examiners are instructed to notify supervisory staff if they discover an improper CPA has been processed: If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the Technology Center (TC) who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records as appropriate.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed after the issue fee has been paid, it will not be treated as a CPA. Instead, it will be processed as follows:

• For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.
• For applications filed before May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as an improper application and will not be processed.

As stated in MPEP 201.06(d): “If an application is filed on or after May 29, 2000, the filing of a CPA is not permitted after payment of the issue fee. In such a case, the Office will treat the improper CPA as an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, provided that the application is a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995.”

It’s important to note that this treatment as an RCE is only possible for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. For other types of applications or those filed before this date, the improper CPA filing will not be processed, and the applicant may need to consider other options, such as filing a reissue application if the patent has already issued.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

The signature requirements for filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and important. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be signed by a person authorized to prosecute the application, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(b).

This means that:

• The CPA must be signed by someone authorized to prosecute the application.
• Typically, this would be the applicant or the applicant’s patent attorney or agent.
• There are exceptions outlined in 37 CFR 1.33(b), which allow for certain communications to be signed by other parties in specific circumstances.

It’s crucial to ensure that the proper signature is provided when filing a CPA to avoid potential issues with the application’s acceptance or processing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

The filing requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are as follows:

• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted;
  • Abandonment of the prior application; or
  • Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
• The CPA must include a request to initiate proceedings under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
• The prior application must be a design application eligible for CPA practice.

As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): ‘A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).’

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

What are the filing date requirements for a CPA?

The filing date requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and must be adhered to. 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 paper filing, even though it may be submitted via EFS-Web.

Key points about CPA filing date requirements include:

• The CPA must be filed before the payment of the issue fee for the prior application
• It must be filed before abandonment of the prior application
• The request for a CPA must be made on a separate paper
• The filing date is based on when the CPA request is received, not when other application documents are submitted

It’s crucial to meet these requirements to ensure the CPA is properly filed and receives the correct filing date.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is generally maintained from the prior application. However, if there’s a need to add or change inventors, specific procedures must be followed.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: “Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application.”

This means that if you want to add or change inventors in a CPA, you must file a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48, which outlines the procedure for correction of inventorship in patent applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is directly related to the parent application. As stated in MPEP 201.06(d):

‘The inventorship in a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is the same as in the prior application.’

This means that when you file a CPA, you are essentially continuing the same application with the same inventors. However, it’s important to note that if there are any changes to inventorship required, they must be made through the appropriate procedures, such as filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Any such changes should be made promptly to ensure the accuracy of the patent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has important implications for its priority claim. 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 not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8.

This means that:

• The CPA’s filing date is the actual date the USPTO receives the CPA request.
• This date cannot be backdated using a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission.
• The CPA automatically receives the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
• Any foreign priority or domestic benefit claims made in the prior application are automatically carried forward to the CPA.

It’s crucial to understand that while the CPA maintains the priority claims of the prior application, its actual filing date is the date of receipt by the USPTO, which can affect certain statutory deadlines and prior art considerations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) generally carries over from the prior application, but there are some important considerations:

• The inventive entity of the CPA is automatically the same as the prior application unless a statement is filed requesting deletion of inventors
• A statement requesting deletion of inventors must be filed with the CPA request and signed by a person authorized under 37 CFR 1.33(b)
• New inventors cannot be added simply by naming them in the CPA transmittal letter or a new oath/declaration
• To add new inventors, a request under 37 CFR 1.48 must be filed, including the required fee

The MPEP states: The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the CPA.

If an inventor is named in the CPA who was not in the prior application, the examiner will notify the applicant using form paragraph 2.33:

It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as is required, was filed to correct the inventorship.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

Confidentiality in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) is handled differently from standard applications. Filing a CPA includes a waiver of confidentiality to some extent:

• The CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality under 35 U.S.C. 122
• This waiver allows public access to both the prior application and any continuing applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Access is limited to those entitled under 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain information about the applications

The MPEP states: A CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public who is entitled under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(d) may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning, the other application(s) in the application file.

This means that if someone is entitled to access information about either the prior application or the CPA, they may be given similar access to information about both applications. This is different from the standard confidentiality provisions for pending applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

According to MPEP § 201, specifically paragraph 2.30, an examiner notifies an applicant about a Continued Prosecution Application’s (CPA) acceptance in the first Office action of the CPA. The MPEP states:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a request for a CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA.

This notification is crucial because it confirms the establishment of the CPA and provides important information to the applicant about the status of their application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a unique type of continuing application that has specific limitations. According to MPEP 201.02:

A ‘continued prosecution application’ (CPA) is a continuation or divisional application for an invention disclosed in a prior nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d). A CPA can only be filed in a design application.

Key differences of CPAs compared to other continuing applications:

• Limited to design applications: CPAs can only be filed for design patents, not utility or plant patents.
• Automatic abandonment: Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application.
• Simplified filing: CPAs can be filed with fewer formalities than other continuing applications.
• Examination continuation: The examination process continues from where it left off in the parent application.

It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these types of applications, applicants must use other forms of continuing applications, such as RCEs (Requests for Continued Examination).

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Benefit claims in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have some unique characteristics:

• A CPA automatically includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior application
• No additional amendment to the specification or application data sheet is required to claim benefit
• A CPA is considered to reference every application in the chain with the same application number
• Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) from the parent application automatically carry over to the CPA

The MPEP states: 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).

It’s important to note that applicants cannot delete benefit claims to certain applications in a chain of CPAs. The MPEP clarifies: Therefore, regardless of whether an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the benefit of a CPA is, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4), a claim to every application assigned the application number of such CPA. In addition, applicants will not be permitted to delete such a benefit claim as to certain applications assigned that application number (e.g., for patent term purposes).

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

To delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications, you must submit a statement requesting the deletion along with the CPA filing. The MPEP states:

“Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2]. The inventorship has been corrected as requested.”

It’s important to note that this process is specific to CPA filings for design applications. If you need to delete a named inventor after the CPA has been filed, you must follow a different procedure, as outlined in MPEP ¶ 2.32: “Any request to delete a named inventor in a CPA filed after the CPA is filed must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48.”

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of an application, but they have significant differences:

• CPAs are only available for design patent applications, while RCEs can be used for utility, plant, and design applications
• CPAs result in a new application with the same application number, while RCEs continue examination of the same application
• CPAs can only be filed before payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings; RCEs can be filed after payment of the issue fee with a petition
• CPAs automatically abandon the prior application, while RCEs do not

The MPEP states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Henceforth, applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

It’s important to note that if an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application on or after July 14, 2003, it may be treated as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

Yes, the inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can differ from the original application, but only if a proper request is filed and approved.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application. This implies that changes to inventorship are possible, but they require specific action.

To change the inventorship, you must file a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies whether you’re adding, removing, or changing the order of inventors. Without this formal request, the inventorship will remain the same as in the original application, even if new inventors are listed on the CPA filing documents.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

Amendments can be made when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), but there are important restrictions and considerations:

• Any changes must be made as an amendment to the prior application as it existed before filing the CPA
• No new matter can be introduced in a CPA
• Preliminary amendments filed with a CPA are generally entered, but could be denied entry if they unduly interfere with examination
• New specifications filed with a CPA request are treated as substitute specifications and must comply with 37 CFR 1.125

The MPEP states: Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application.

Regarding preliminary amendments, the MPEP advises: Applicants are also encouraged to file all preliminary amendments at the time of filing a CPA because the entry of any preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the CPA could be denied under 37 CFR 1.115 if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action.

If more time is needed to prepare amendments, applicants can request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) at the time of filing the CPA.

For more information on amendments, visit: amendments.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Yes, a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for design applications. In fact, as of September 8, 2000, CPAs are only available for design applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. CPAs can only be filed for design applications.’

This means that for utility and plant patent applications, other forms of continuing applications such as RCEs (Request for Continued Examination) or continuation applications under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must be used instead of CPAs.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

No, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA). The MPEP explicitly states: “A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

Continuation-in-part applications may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). This is an important distinction to remember when considering different types of patent application filings.

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

According to MPEP 325, a patent owner or assignee who has become the applicant can take various actions in a patent application. These include:

• Signing a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3))
• Requesting a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Filing a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321
• Submitting a Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B)
• Requesting the status of an application
• Filing an application under 37 CFR 1.46
• Appointing a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application
• Granting a power to inspect the application
• Consenting to the filing of a reissue application
• Consenting to the correction of inventorship

The MPEP notes: “As the applicant, the owner or assignee that is not a juristic entity can sign a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3)), a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (MPEP § 201.06(d)), a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306), or a request for status of an application (MPEP § 102).”

It’s important to note that for juristic entities (e.g., corporations), many actions must be signed by a patent practitioner after September 16, 2012.

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) by facsimile requires specific procedures, as outlined in MPEP 502.01:

1. CPAs are only available for design applications.
2. The CPA must be sent to the central facsimile number: (571) 273-8300.
3. An authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or credit card must be included, or the application will be treated as filed without the basic filing fee.
4. There is a special receipt procedure for CPA filings by fax:

There is a special receipt procedure for filing a CPA by fax, whereby the Office will fax back a receipt of the CPA filing if applicant submits the Office receipt form along with the CPA filing.

It’s important to note that if the USPTO has no evidence of receiving a CPA transmitted by fax, the applicant may need to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.6(f) to request a filing date. This petition must include:

• Information about the previous transmission
• An additional copy of the CPA
• A statement attesting to the previous transmission
• Evidence of the transmission, such as a sending unit’s report or other evidence created within one business day of the transmission

Always ensure that you follow these procedures carefully when filing a CPA by facsimile to avoid any issues with the filing date or processing of your application.

To learn more:

• Continued Prosecution Application
• CPA
• facsimile filing
• USPTO procedures
• design applications

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request to correct inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as soon as you realize there’s a need to add or remove an inventor. This should be done concurrently with or shortly after filing the CPA.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates:

Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

It’s important to file this request promptly to ensure that the correct inventorship is recorded for your application. Failure to do so may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application, which could potentially affect the validity of your patent if granted.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) whenever you need to add, remove, or change the order of inventors from the original application.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies even if you’ve identified the new inventor in the CPA filing documents.

It’s best to file the 37 CFR 1.48 request as soon as you realize there’s a need to correct the inventorship. This ensures that the correct inventors are associated with the application throughout the examination process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is acceptable when it meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP § 201, the examiner will use specific language to indicate acceptance:

The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.

It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design patent applications. For utility and plant applications, a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) would be used instead.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for specific types of applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is not available for utility and plant applications.

This means that CPAs are limited to:

• Design applications: Applications for design patents can be filed as CPAs.
• Continuation applications: These must be based on an earlier application of the same type (i.e., design).
• Divisional applications: These must also be based on an earlier design application.

It’s important to note that continuation-in-part (CIP) applications cannot be filed as CPAs. Additionally, utility and plant patent applications are no longer eligible for CPA practice since July 14, 2003.

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The examiner plays a crucial role in processing requests to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the examiner is responsible for acknowledging the receipt of the request and confirming that the inventorship has been corrected. The MPEP provides the following guidance for examiners:

“Examiner Note: 1. Use this form paragraph where a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.”

The examiner must verify that the request was submitted with the CPA filing and use the appropriate form paragraph to acknowledge the correction of inventorship. If the request is made after the CPA filing, the examiner must ensure it’s accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48, as per the MPEP instructions.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

The purpose of MPEP ¶ 2.33 is to provide guidance to patent examiners when they encounter a situation where a new inventor is identified in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. It states:

Use this form paragraph where a request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) identifies one or more inventors who were not named as inventors in the prior application on the filing date of the CPA.

This paragraph helps examiners address situations where applicants have named new inventors in a CPA without following the proper procedure. It reminds both examiners and applicants that a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48 is required to change inventorship, even in a CPA.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has a significant effect on the prior application. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘A request for a CPA expressly abandons the prior application as of the filing date of the request for the CPA.’

This means that:

• The prior application is automatically and expressly abandoned when the CPA is filed.
• The abandonment is effective as of the CPA filing date.
• Any claims or amendments in the prior application that were not entered are not carried over to the CPA.

It’s important to note that while the prior application is abandoned, the CPA is a continuation of that application, maintaining continuity for purposes such as priority claims and patent term calculations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of a patent application, but they have different uses and applications:

• CPAs are primarily used for design patent applications, as indicated in MPEP ¶ 2.30.
• RCEs are used for utility and plant patent applications. The MPEP states: “If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead).”

This distinction is important because it affects how patent examiners process and respond to these continuation requests.

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

A Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications is a procedure that allows for the correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. This request is specifically used to remove the name(s) of person(s) who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

This paragraph confirms that the USPTO recognizes and processes such requests when submitted with a CPA filing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. As stated in the MPEP, A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is called a ‘Continued Prosecution Application’ (CPA). CPAs allow applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application while retaining the benefit of the earlier filing date.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Continued Prosecution Application
• Design Patents
• Patent Application

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent application. It is governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, when a CPA is accepted, the examiner will use the following language:

“The request filed on [filing date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [parent application number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.”

This indicates that the CPA has been properly filed and prosecution will continue based on the parent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents. It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a previously filed design application by filing a request for continued examination. CPAs are governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d) and are only available for design applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed for design patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows an applicant to continue prosecution of a prior design application. As stated in the MPEP:

A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;

CPAs can only be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the prior application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Conditional Request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a filing made under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. However, it’s important to note that any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. This means that even if an applicant intends the request to be conditional, the USPTO will process it as a standard CPA request.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

What happens to the status of the prior application when filing a CPA?

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the status of the prior application changes. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing of a CPA is not a filing of a new application. Rather, a CPA is a continuation of the prior application and maintains the same application number as the prior application, i.e., the application number of the prior application is used as the application number for the CPA.

This means that:

• The prior application is not abandoned
• The CPA continues the examination process of the prior application
• The same application number is retained for the CPA

It’s important to note that while the CPA continues the examination, it is treated as a new application for all other purposes under the patent statute and rules.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

If the basic filing fee is not paid when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the USPTO will send a notice to the applicant. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘If the basic filing fee is not paid when the CPA is filed or within the time period set forth in a notice from the Office, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts in the CPA.’

This notice gives the applicant a chance to pay the fee and continue the application process. However, it’s important to note that failing to respond to this notice or pay the required fee within the specified time frame could result in the CPA being abandoned. It’s always best practice to submit all required fees at the time of filing to avoid potential delays or complications in the patent application process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on Notice to File Missing Parts, visit: Notice to File Missing Parts.

When an improper Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed, the USPTO’s response depends on the type of application and the nature of the impropriety:

• For utility or plant applications filed on or after July 14, 2003, an improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if possible
• If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements, it’s treated as an improper RCE
• For design applications, an improper CPA may be treated as a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in some circumstances
• The Office will not automatically convert an improper CPA to an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) without extenuating circumstances

The MPEP states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed.

Regarding treatment as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements: If the improper CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request lacks a submission or the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e), or the prosecution of the application is not closed), the Office treats the improper CPA as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run.

Examiners are instructed to notify supervisory staff if they discover an improper CPA has been processed: If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the Technology Center (TC) who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records as appropriate.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed after the issue fee has been paid, it will not be treated as a CPA. Instead, it will be processed as follows:

• For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.
• For applications filed before May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as an improper application and will not be processed.

As stated in MPEP 201.06(d): “If an application is filed on or after May 29, 2000, the filing of a CPA is not permitted after payment of the issue fee. In such a case, the Office will treat the improper CPA as an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, provided that the application is a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995.”

It’s important to note that this treatment as an RCE is only possible for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. For other types of applications or those filed before this date, the improper CPA filing will not be processed, and the applicant may need to consider other options, such as filing a reissue application if the patent has already issued.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

The signature requirements for filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and important. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be signed by a person authorized to prosecute the application, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(b).

This means that:

• The CPA must be signed by someone authorized to prosecute the application.
• Typically, this would be the applicant or the applicant’s patent attorney or agent.
• There are exceptions outlined in 37 CFR 1.33(b), which allow for certain communications to be signed by other parties in specific circumstances.

It’s crucial to ensure that the proper signature is provided when filing a CPA to avoid potential issues with the application’s acceptance or processing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), there are specific rules regarding benefit claims. The MPEP states:

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), no amendment may delete the specific reference to a prior application assigned the same application number.

This is because in a CPA:

• The request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request.
• A specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and should not be made.

Therefore, when dealing with a CPA, it’s crucial to understand that the benefit claim to the prior application with the same application number is inherent in the CPA request itself and cannot be deleted. Any additional benefit claims would need to follow the standard procedures for adding benefit claims after filing.

To learn more:

• CPA
• continued prosecution application
• benefit claim
• patent application

The filing requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are as follows:

• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted;
  • Abandonment of the prior application; or
  • Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
• The CPA must include a request to initiate proceedings under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
• The prior application must be a design application eligible for CPA practice.

As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): ‘A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).’

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

What are the filing date requirements for a CPA?

The filing date requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and must be adhered to. 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 paper filing, even though it may be submitted via EFS-Web.

Key points about CPA filing date requirements include:

• The CPA must be filed before the payment of the issue fee for the prior application
• It must be filed before abandonment of the prior application
• The request for a CPA must be made on a separate paper
• The filing date is based on when the CPA request is received, not when other application documents are submitted

It’s crucial to meet these requirements to ensure the CPA is properly filed and receives the correct filing date.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

According to MPEP 325, a patent owner or assignee who has become the applicant can take various actions in a patent application. These include:

• Signing a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3))
• Requesting a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Filing a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321
• Submitting a Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B)
• Requesting the status of an application
• Filing an application under 37 CFR 1.46
• Appointing a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application
• Granting a power to inspect the application
• Consenting to the filing of a reissue application
• Consenting to the correction of inventorship

The MPEP notes: “As the applicant, the owner or assignee that is not a juristic entity can sign a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3)), a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (MPEP § 201.06(d)), a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306), or a request for status of an application (MPEP § 102).”

It’s important to note that for juristic entities (e.g., corporations), many actions must be signed by a patent practitioner after September 16, 2012.

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) by facsimile requires specific procedures, as outlined in MPEP 502.01:

1. CPAs are only available for design applications.
2. The CPA must be sent to the central facsimile number: (571) 273-8300.
3. An authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or credit card must be included, or the application will be treated as filed without the basic filing fee.
4. There is a special receipt procedure for CPA filings by fax:

There is a special receipt procedure for filing a CPA by fax, whereby the Office will fax back a receipt of the CPA filing if applicant submits the Office receipt form along with the CPA filing.

It’s important to note that if the USPTO has no evidence of receiving a CPA transmitted by fax, the applicant may need to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.6(f) to request a filing date. This petition must include:

• Information about the previous transmission
• An additional copy of the CPA
• A statement attesting to the previous transmission
• Evidence of the transmission, such as a sending unit’s report or other evidence created within one business day of the transmission

Always ensure that you follow these procedures carefully when filing a CPA by facsimile to avoid any issues with the filing date or processing of your application.

To learn more:

• Continued Prosecution Application
• CPA
• facsimile filing
• USPTO procedures
• design applications

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is generally maintained from the prior application. However, if there’s a need to add or change inventors, specific procedures must be followed.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: “Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application.”

This means that if you want to add or change inventors in a CPA, you must file a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48, which outlines the procedure for correction of inventorship in patent applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

For Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the USPTO automatically considers information that was considered in the parent application. The MPEP states:

“Information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application of a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will be part of the file before the examiner and need not be resubmitted in the continuing application to have the information considered and listed on the patent.”

This means that applicants do not need to resubmit previously considered information in a CPA. The examiner will have access to and consider this information without any additional action required from the applicant.

To learn more:

• Information Disclosure Statement
• IDS
• Continued Prosecution Application
• CPA
• patent examination

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is directly related to the parent application. As stated in MPEP 201.06(d):

‘The inventorship in a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is the same as in the prior application.’

This means that when you file a CPA, you are essentially continuing the same application with the same inventors. However, it’s important to note that if there are any changes to inventorship required, they must be made through the appropriate procedures, such as filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Any such changes should be made promptly to ensure the accuracy of the patent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has important implications for its priority claim. 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 not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8.

This means that:

• The CPA’s filing date is the actual date the USPTO receives the CPA request.
• This date cannot be backdated using a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission.
• The CPA automatically receives the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
• Any foreign priority or domestic benefit claims made in the prior application are automatically carried forward to the CPA.

It’s crucial to understand that while the CPA maintains the priority claims of the prior application, its actual filing date is the date of receipt by the USPTO, which can affect certain statutory deadlines and prior art considerations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) generally carries over from the prior application, but there are some important considerations:

• The inventive entity of the CPA is automatically the same as the prior application unless a statement is filed requesting deletion of inventors
• A statement requesting deletion of inventors must be filed with the CPA request and signed by a person authorized under 37 CFR 1.33(b)
• New inventors cannot be added simply by naming them in the CPA transmittal letter or a new oath/declaration
• To add new inventors, a request under 37 CFR 1.48 must be filed, including the required fee

The MPEP states: The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the CPA.

If an inventor is named in the CPA who was not in the prior application, the examiner will notify the applicant using form paragraph 2.33:

It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as is required, was filed to correct the inventorship.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

Confidentiality in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) is handled differently from standard applications. Filing a CPA includes a waiver of confidentiality to some extent:

• The CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality under 35 U.S.C. 122
• This waiver allows public access to both the prior application and any continuing applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Access is limited to those entitled under 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain information about the applications

The MPEP states: A CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public who is entitled under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(d) may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning, the other application(s) in the application file.

This means that if someone is entitled to access information about either the prior application or the CPA, they may be given similar access to information about both applications. This is different from the standard confidentiality provisions for pending applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

According to MPEP § 201, specifically paragraph 2.30, an examiner notifies an applicant about a Continued Prosecution Application’s (CPA) acceptance in the first Office action of the CPA. The MPEP states:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a request for a CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA.

This notification is crucial because it confirms the establishment of the CPA and provides important information to the applicant about the status of their application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a unique type of continuing application that has specific limitations. According to MPEP 201.02:

A ‘continued prosecution application’ (CPA) is a continuation or divisional application for an invention disclosed in a prior nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d). A CPA can only be filed in a design application.

Key differences of CPAs compared to other continuing applications:

• Limited to design applications: CPAs can only be filed for design patents, not utility or plant patents.
• Automatic abandonment: Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application.
• Simplified filing: CPAs can be filed with fewer formalities than other continuing applications.
• Examination continuation: The examination process continues from where it left off in the parent application.

It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these types of applications, applicants must use other forms of continuing applications, such as RCEs (Requests for Continued Examination).

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Benefit claims in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have some unique characteristics:

• A CPA automatically includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior application
• No additional amendment to the specification or application data sheet is required to claim benefit
• A CPA is considered to reference every application in the chain with the same application number
• Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) from the parent application automatically carry over to the CPA

The MPEP states: 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).

It’s important to note that applicants cannot delete benefit claims to certain applications in a chain of CPAs. The MPEP clarifies: Therefore, regardless of whether an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the benefit of a CPA is, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4), a claim to every application assigned the application number of such CPA. In addition, applicants will not be permitted to delete such a benefit claim as to certain applications assigned that application number (e.g., for patent term purposes).

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

To delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications, you must submit a statement requesting the deletion along with the CPA filing. The MPEP states:

“Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2]. The inventorship has been corrected as requested.”

It’s important to note that this process is specific to CPA filings for design applications. If you need to delete a named inventor after the CPA has been filed, you must follow a different procedure, as outlined in MPEP ¶ 2.32: “Any request to delete a named inventor in a CPA filed after the CPA is filed must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48.”

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of an application, but they have significant differences:

• CPAs are only available for design patent applications, while RCEs can be used for utility, plant, and design applications
• CPAs result in a new application with the same application number, while RCEs continue examination of the same application
• CPAs can only be filed before payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings; RCEs can be filed after payment of the issue fee with a petition
• CPAs automatically abandon the prior application, while RCEs do not

The MPEP states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Henceforth, applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

It’s important to note that if an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application on or after July 14, 2003, it may be treated as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

Yes, the inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can differ from the original application, but only if a proper request is filed and approved.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application. This implies that changes to inventorship are possible, but they require specific action.

To change the inventorship, you must file a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies whether you’re adding, removing, or changing the order of inventors. Without this formal request, the inventorship will remain the same as in the original application, even if new inventors are listed on the CPA filing documents.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

Amendments can be made when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), but there are important restrictions and considerations:

• Any changes must be made as an amendment to the prior application as it existed before filing the CPA
• No new matter can be introduced in a CPA
• Preliminary amendments filed with a CPA are generally entered, but could be denied entry if they unduly interfere with examination
• New specifications filed with a CPA request are treated as substitute specifications and must comply with 37 CFR 1.125

The MPEP states: Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application.

Regarding preliminary amendments, the MPEP advises: Applicants are also encouraged to file all preliminary amendments at the time of filing a CPA because the entry of any preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the CPA could be denied under 37 CFR 1.115 if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action.

If more time is needed to prepare amendments, applicants can request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) at the time of filing the CPA.

For more information on amendments, visit: amendments.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Yes, a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for design applications. In fact, as of September 8, 2000, CPAs are only available for design applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. CPAs can only be filed for design applications.’

This means that for utility and plant patent applications, other forms of continuing applications such as RCEs (Request for Continued Examination) or continuation applications under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must be used instead of CPAs.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

No, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA). The MPEP explicitly states: “A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

Continuation-in-part applications may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). This is an important distinction to remember when considering different types of patent application filings.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request to correct inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as soon as you realize there’s a need to add or remove an inventor. This should be done concurrently with or shortly after filing the CPA.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates:

Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

It’s important to file this request promptly to ensure that the correct inventorship is recorded for your application. Failure to do so may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application, which could potentially affect the validity of your patent if granted.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

You should file a 37 CFR 1.48 request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) whenever you need to add, remove, or change the order of inventors from the original application.

The MPEP ¶ 2.33 indicates: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies even if you’ve identified the new inventor in the CPA filing documents.

It’s best to file the 37 CFR 1.48 request as soon as you realize there’s a need to correct the inventorship. This ensures that the correct inventors are associated with the application throughout the examination process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is acceptable when it meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP § 201, the examiner will use specific language to indicate acceptance:

The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.

It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design patent applications. For utility and plant applications, a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) would be used instead.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for specific types of applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is not available for utility and plant applications.

This means that CPAs are limited to:

• Design applications: Applications for design patents can be filed as CPAs.
• Continuation applications: These must be based on an earlier application of the same type (i.e., design).
• Divisional applications: These must also be based on an earlier design application.

It’s important to note that continuation-in-part (CIP) applications cannot be filed as CPAs. Additionally, utility and plant patent applications are no longer eligible for CPA practice since July 14, 2003.

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The examiner plays a crucial role in processing requests to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the examiner is responsible for acknowledging the receipt of the request and confirming that the inventorship has been corrected. The MPEP provides the following guidance for examiners:

“Examiner Note: 1. Use this form paragraph where a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.”

The examiner must verify that the request was submitted with the CPA filing and use the appropriate form paragraph to acknowledge the correction of inventorship. If the request is made after the CPA filing, the examiner must ensure it’s accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48, as per the MPEP instructions.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

The purpose of MPEP ¶ 2.33 is to provide guidance to patent examiners when they encounter a situation where a new inventor is identified in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications. It states:

Use this form paragraph where a request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) identifies one or more inventors who were not named as inventors in the prior application on the filing date of the CPA.

This paragraph helps examiners address situations where applicants have named new inventors in a CPA without following the proper procedure. It reminds both examiners and applicants that a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48 is required to change inventorship, even in a CPA.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has a significant effect on the prior application. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘A request for a CPA expressly abandons the prior application as of the filing date of the request for the CPA.’

This means that:

• The prior application is automatically and expressly abandoned when the CPA is filed.
• The abandonment is effective as of the CPA filing date.
• Any claims or amendments in the prior application that were not entered are not carried over to the CPA.

It’s important to note that while the prior application is abandoned, the CPA is a continuation of that application, maintaining continuity for purposes such as priority claims and patent term calculations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of a patent application, but they have different uses and applications:

• CPAs are primarily used for design patent applications, as indicated in MPEP ¶ 2.30.
• RCEs are used for utility and plant patent applications. The MPEP states: “If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead).”

This distinction is important because it affects how patent examiners process and respond to these continuation requests.

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

A Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications is a procedure that allows for the correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. This request is specifically used to remove the name(s) of person(s) who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

This paragraph confirms that the USPTO recognizes and processes such requests when submitted with a CPA filing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. As stated in the MPEP, A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is called a ‘Continued Prosecution Application’ (CPA). CPAs allow applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application while retaining the benefit of the earlier filing date.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Continued Prosecution Application
• Design Patents
• Patent Application

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent application. It is governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, when a CPA is accepted, the examiner will use the following language:

“The request filed on [filing date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [parent application number] is acceptable and a CPA has been established.”

This indicates that the CPA has been properly filed and prosecution will continue based on the parent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents. It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a previously filed design application by filing a request for continued examination. CPAs are governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d) and are only available for design applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed for design patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows an applicant to continue prosecution of a prior design application. As stated in the MPEP:

A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;

CPAs can only be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the prior application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

A Conditional Request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a filing made under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications. However, it’s important to note that any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. This means that even if an applicant intends the request to be conditional, the USPTO will process it as a standard CPA request.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

What happens to the status of the prior application when filing a CPA?

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the status of the prior application changes. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

The filing of a CPA is not a filing of a new application. Rather, a CPA is a continuation of the prior application and maintains the same application number as the prior application, i.e., the application number of the prior application is used as the application number for the CPA.

This means that:

• The prior application is not abandoned
• The CPA continues the examination process of the prior application
• The same application number is retained for the CPA

It’s important to note that while the CPA continues the examination, it is treated as a new application for all other purposes under the patent statute and rules.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

If the basic filing fee is not paid when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the USPTO will send a notice to the applicant. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘If the basic filing fee is not paid when the CPA is filed or within the time period set forth in a notice from the Office, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts in the CPA.’

This notice gives the applicant a chance to pay the fee and continue the application process. However, it’s important to note that failing to respond to this notice or pay the required fee within the specified time frame could result in the CPA being abandoned. It’s always best practice to submit all required fees at the time of filing to avoid potential delays or complications in the patent application process.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on Notice to File Missing Parts, visit: Notice to File Missing Parts.

When an improper Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed, the USPTO’s response depends on the type of application and the nature of the impropriety:

• For utility or plant applications filed on or after July 14, 2003, an improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if possible
• If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements, it’s treated as an improper RCE
• For design applications, an improper CPA may be treated as a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in some circumstances
• The Office will not automatically convert an improper CPA to an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) without extenuating circumstances

The MPEP states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed.

Regarding treatment as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

If the improper CPA doesn’t meet RCE requirements: If the improper CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request lacks a submission or the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e), or the prosecution of the application is not closed), the Office treats the improper CPA as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run.

Examiners are instructed to notify supervisory staff if they discover an improper CPA has been processed: If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the Technology Center (TC) who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records as appropriate.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed after the issue fee has been paid, it will not be treated as a CPA. Instead, it will be processed as follows:

• For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.
• For applications filed before May 29, 2000, the CPA will be treated as an improper application and will not be processed.

As stated in MPEP 201.06(d): “If an application is filed on or after May 29, 2000, the filing of a CPA is not permitted after payment of the issue fee. In such a case, the Office will treat the improper CPA as an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, provided that the application is a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995.”

It’s important to note that this treatment as an RCE is only possible for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. For other types of applications or those filed before this date, the improper CPA filing will not be processed, and the applicant may need to consider other options, such as filing a reissue application if the patent has already issued.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

The signature requirements for filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and important. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be signed by a person authorized to prosecute the application, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(b).

This means that:

• The CPA must be signed by someone authorized to prosecute the application.
• Typically, this would be the applicant or the applicant’s patent attorney or agent.
• There are exceptions outlined in 37 CFR 1.33(b), which allow for certain communications to be signed by other parties in specific circumstances.

It’s crucial to ensure that the proper signature is provided when filing a CPA to avoid potential issues with the application’s acceptance or processing.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), there are specific rules regarding benefit claims. The MPEP states:

In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), no amendment may delete the specific reference to a prior application assigned the same application number.

This is because in a CPA:

• The request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request.
• A specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and should not be made.

Therefore, when dealing with a CPA, it’s crucial to understand that the benefit claim to the prior application with the same application number is inherent in the CPA request itself and cannot be deleted. Any additional benefit claims would need to follow the standard procedures for adding benefit claims after filing.

To learn more:

• CPA
• continued prosecution application
• benefit claim
• patent application

The filing requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are as follows:

• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted;
  • Abandonment of the prior application; or
  • Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
• The CPA must include a request to initiate proceedings under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
• The prior application must be a design application eligible for CPA practice.

As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): ‘A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).’

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

What are the filing date requirements for a CPA?

The filing date requirements for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) are specific and must be adhered to. 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 paper filing, even though it may be submitted via EFS-Web.

Key points about CPA filing date requirements include:

• The CPA must be filed before the payment of the issue fee for the prior application
• It must be filed before abandonment of the prior application
• The request for a CPA must be made on a separate paper
• The filing date is based on when the CPA request is received, not when other application documents are submitted

It’s crucial to meet these requirements to ensure the CPA is properly filed and receives the correct filing date.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

According to MPEP 325, a patent owner or assignee who has become the applicant can take various actions in a patent application. These include:

• Signing a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3))
• Requesting a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Filing a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321
• Submitting a Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B)
• Requesting the status of an application
• Filing an application under 37 CFR 1.46
• Appointing a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application
• Granting a power to inspect the application
• Consenting to the filing of a reissue application
• Consenting to the correction of inventorship

The MPEP notes: “As the applicant, the owner or assignee that is not a juristic entity can sign a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3)), a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (MPEP § 201.06(d)), a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306), or a request for status of an application (MPEP § 102).”

It’s important to note that for juristic entities (e.g., corporations), many actions must be signed by a patent practitioner after September 16, 2012.

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) by facsimile requires specific procedures, as outlined in MPEP 502.01:

1. CPAs are only available for design applications.
2. The CPA must be sent to the central facsimile number: (571) 273-8300.
3. An authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or credit card must be included, or the application will be treated as filed without the basic filing fee.
4. There is a special receipt procedure for CPA filings by fax:

There is a special receipt procedure for filing a CPA by fax, whereby the Office will fax back a receipt of the CPA filing if applicant submits the Office receipt form along with the CPA filing.

It’s important to note that if the USPTO has no evidence of receiving a CPA transmitted by fax, the applicant may need to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.6(f) to request a filing date. This petition must include:

• Information about the previous transmission
• An additional copy of the CPA
• A statement attesting to the previous transmission
• Evidence of the transmission, such as a sending unit’s report or other evidence created within one business day of the transmission

Always ensure that you follow these procedures carefully when filing a CPA by facsimile to avoid any issues with the filing date or processing of your application.

To learn more:

• Continued Prosecution Application
• CPA
• facsimile filing
• USPTO procedures
• design applications

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is generally maintained from the prior application. However, if there’s a need to add or change inventors, specific procedures must be followed.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: “Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application.”

This means that if you want to add or change inventors in a CPA, you must file a formal request under 37 CFR 1.48, which outlines the procedure for correction of inventorship in patent applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

For Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the USPTO automatically considers information that was considered in the parent application. The MPEP states:

“Information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application of a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will be part of the file before the examiner and need not be resubmitted in the continuing application to have the information considered and listed on the patent.”

This means that applicants do not need to resubmit previously considered information in a CPA. The examiner will have access to and consider this information without any additional action required from the applicant.

To learn more:

• Information Disclosure Statement
• IDS
• Continued Prosecution Application
• CPA
• patent examination

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is directly related to the parent application. As stated in MPEP 201.06(d):

‘The inventorship in a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is the same as in the prior application.’

This means that when you file a CPA, you are essentially continuing the same application with the same inventors. However, it’s important to note that if there are any changes to inventorship required, they must be made through the appropriate procedures, such as filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Any such changes should be made promptly to ensure the accuracy of the patent application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has important implications for its priority claim. 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 not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8.

This means that:

• The CPA’s filing date is the actual date the USPTO receives the CPA request.
• This date cannot be backdated using a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission.
• The CPA automatically receives the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
• Any foreign priority or domestic benefit claims made in the prior application are automatically carried forward to the CPA.

It’s crucial to understand that while the CPA maintains the priority claims of the prior application, its actual filing date is the date of receipt by the USPTO, which can affect certain statutory deadlines and prior art considerations.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) generally carries over from the prior application, but there are some important considerations:

• The inventive entity of the CPA is automatically the same as the prior application unless a statement is filed requesting deletion of inventors
• A statement requesting deletion of inventors must be filed with the CPA request and signed by a person authorized under 37 CFR 1.33(b)
• New inventors cannot be added simply by naming them in the CPA transmittal letter or a new oath/declaration
• To add new inventors, a request under 37 CFR 1.48 must be filed, including the required fee

The MPEP states: The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the CPA.

If an inventor is named in the CPA who was not in the prior application, the examiner will notify the applicant using form paragraph 2.33:

It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as is required, was filed to correct the inventorship.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

Confidentiality in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) is handled differently from standard applications. Filing a CPA includes a waiver of confidentiality to some extent:

• The CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality under 35 U.S.C. 122
• This waiver allows public access to both the prior application and any continuing applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
• Access is limited to those entitled under 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain information about the applications

The MPEP states: A CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public who is entitled under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(d) may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning, the other application(s) in the application file.

This means that if someone is entitled to access information about either the prior application or the CPA, they may be given similar access to information about both applications. This is different from the standard confidentiality provisions for pending applications.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

According to MPEP § 201, specifically paragraph 2.30, an examiner notifies an applicant about a Continued Prosecution Application’s (CPA) acceptance in the first Office action of the CPA. The MPEP states:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a request for a CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA.

This notification is crucial because it confirms the establishment of the CPA and provides important information to the applicant about the status of their application.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a unique type of continuing application that has specific limitations. According to MPEP 201.02:

A ‘continued prosecution application’ (CPA) is a continuation or divisional application for an invention disclosed in a prior nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d). A CPA can only be filed in a design application.

Key differences of CPAs compared to other continuing applications:

• Limited to design applications: CPAs can only be filed for design patents, not utility or plant patents.
• Automatic abandonment: Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application.
• Simplified filing: CPAs can be filed with fewer formalities than other continuing applications.
• Examination continuation: The examination process continues from where it left off in the parent application.

It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these types of applications, applicants must use other forms of continuing applications, such as RCEs (Requests for Continued Examination).

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Benefit claims in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have some unique characteristics:

• A CPA automatically includes a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior application
• No additional amendment to the specification or application data sheet is required to claim benefit
• A CPA is considered to reference every application in the chain with the same application number
• Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) from the parent application automatically carry over to the CPA

The MPEP states: 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).

It’s important to note that applicants cannot delete benefit claims to certain applications in a chain of CPAs. The MPEP clarifies: Therefore, regardless of whether an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the benefit of a CPA is, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4), a claim to every application assigned the application number of such CPA. In addition, applicants will not be permitted to delete such a benefit claim as to certain applications assigned that application number (e.g., for patent term purposes).

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

To delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications, you must submit a statement requesting the deletion along with the CPA filing. The MPEP states:

“Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2]. The inventorship has been corrected as requested.”

It’s important to note that this process is specific to CPA filings for design applications. If you need to delete a named inventor after the CPA has been filed, you must follow a different procedure, as outlined in MPEP ¶ 2.32: “Any request to delete a named inventor in a CPA filed after the CPA is filed must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48.”

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) are both methods to continue prosecution of an application, but they have significant differences:

• CPAs are only available for design patent applications, while RCEs can be used for utility, plant, and design applications
• CPAs result in a new application with the same application number, while RCEs continue examination of the same application
• CPAs can only be filed before payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings; RCEs can be filed after payment of the issue fee with a petition
• CPAs automatically abandon the prior application, while RCEs do not

The MPEP states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Henceforth, applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

It’s important to note that if an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application on or after July 14, 2003, it may be treated as an RCE: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

Yes, the inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can differ from the original application, but only if a proper request is filed and approved.

According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application. This implies that changes to inventorship are possible, but they require specific action.

To change the inventorship, you must file a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies whether you’re adding, removing, or changing the order of inventors. Without this formal request, the inventorship will remain the same as in the original application, even if new inventors are listed on the CPA filing documents.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

Amendments can be made when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), but there are important restrictions and considerations:

• Any changes must be made as an amendment to the prior application as it existed before filing the CPA
• No new matter can be introduced in a CPA
• Preliminary amendments filed with a CPA are generally entered, but could be denied entry if they unduly interfere with examination
• New specifications filed with a CPA request are treated as substitute specifications and must comply with 37 CFR 1.125

The MPEP states: Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application.

Regarding preliminary amendments, the MPEP advises: Applicants are also encouraged to file all preliminary amendments at the time of filing a CPA because the entry of any preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the CPA could be denied under 37 CFR 1.115 if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action.

If more time is needed to prepare amendments, applicants can request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) at the time of filing the CPA.

For more information on amendments, visit: amendments.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

Yes, a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can be filed for design applications. In fact, as of September 8, 2000, CPAs are only available for design applications. According to MPEP 201.06(d):

‘Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. CPAs can only be filed for design applications.’

This means that for utility and plant patent applications, other forms of continuing applications such as RCEs (Request for Continued Examination) or continuation applications under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must be used instead of CPAs.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

No, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA). The MPEP explicitly states: “A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).”

Continuation-in-part applications may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). This is an important distinction to remember when considering different types of patent application filings.