Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (14)
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.
For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).
According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:
“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”
This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.
For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.
While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:
Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].
CPAs allow applicants to:
- Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
- Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
- Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application
For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.
For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.
For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.
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.
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.
When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:
- A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
- The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
- The filing date of the CPA
The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:
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].
In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a design application, the following requirements must be met:
- The application must be a design application.
- The prior application must be a nonprovisional application.
- The application must be filed before the earliest of:
- Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
- Abandonment of the prior application; or
- Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): “A continuation or divisional application that is a nonprovisional application may be filed as a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).”
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on filing requirements, visit: filing requirements.
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.
When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can delete a named inventor by including a statement with your CPA filing. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 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.
This means you should provide a clear statement identifying the inventor(s) to be deleted when submitting your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge and process this request, correcting the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
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 correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you must follow the procedures outlined in 37 CFR 1.48. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states:
Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.
To add a new inventor:
- File a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship.
- Include a statement from the new inventor agreeing to the addition.
- Pay any required fees.
- Provide an oath or declaration from the new inventor.
Failure to follow these steps may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally acknowledges a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) through an official response. This acknowledgment serves as confirmation that the request has been received and processed.
The MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides the standard language used by examiners to acknowledge such requests:
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.
In this acknowledgment:
- [1] refers to the name(s) of the inventor(s) requested to be deleted
- [2] indicates the filing date of the CPA
This official response confirms that the USPTO has processed the request and updated the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on USPTO acknowledgment, visit: USPTO acknowledgment.
Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:
- For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
- For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.
According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.
Important considerations:
- Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
- If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
- Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
- In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.
Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.
For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.
A 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.
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority Claims (1)
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.
MPEP 201 – Types of Applications (14)
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.
For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).
According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:
“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”
This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.
For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.
While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:
Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].
CPAs allow applicants to:
- Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
- Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
- Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application
For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.
For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.
For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.
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.
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.
When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:
- A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
- The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
- The filing date of the CPA
The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:
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].
In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a design application, the following requirements must be met:
- The application must be a design application.
- The prior application must be a nonprovisional application.
- The application must be filed before the earliest of:
- Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
- Abandonment of the prior application; or
- Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): “A continuation or divisional application that is a nonprovisional application may be filed as a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).”
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on filing requirements, visit: filing requirements.
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.
When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can delete a named inventor by including a statement with your CPA filing. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 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.
This means you should provide a clear statement identifying the inventor(s) to be deleted when submitting your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge and process this request, correcting the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
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.
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.
To correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you must follow the procedures outlined in 37 CFR 1.48. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states:
Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.
To add a new inventor:
- File a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship.
- Include a statement from the new inventor agreeing to the addition.
- Pay any required fees.
- Provide an oath or declaration from the new inventor.
Failure to follow these steps may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally acknowledges a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) through an official response. This acknowledgment serves as confirmation that the request has been received and processed.
The MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides the standard language used by examiners to acknowledge such requests:
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.
In this acknowledgment:
- [1] refers to the name(s) of the inventor(s) requested to be deleted
- [2] indicates the filing date of the CPA
This official response confirms that the USPTO has processed the request and updated the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on USPTO acknowledgment, visit: USPTO acknowledgment.
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.
MPEP 211 – Claiming the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date Under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e) (1)
Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:
- For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
- For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.
According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.
Important considerations:
- Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
- If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
- Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
- In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.
Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.
For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.
Patent Law (15)
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.
For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).
According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:
“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”
This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.
For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.
While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:
Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].
CPAs allow applicants to:
- Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
- Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
- Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application
For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.
For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.
For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.
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.
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.
When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:
- A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
- The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
- The filing date of the CPA
The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:
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].
In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a design application, the following requirements must be met:
- The application must be a design application.
- The prior application must be a nonprovisional application.
- The application must be filed before the earliest of:
- Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
- Abandonment of the prior application; or
- Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): “A continuation or divisional application that is a nonprovisional application may be filed as a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).”
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on filing requirements, visit: filing requirements.
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.
When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can delete a named inventor by including a statement with your CPA filing. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 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.
This means you should provide a clear statement identifying the inventor(s) to be deleted when submitting your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge and process this request, correcting the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
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.
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.
To correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you must follow the procedures outlined in 37 CFR 1.48. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states:
Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.
To add a new inventor:
- File a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship.
- Include a statement from the new inventor agreeing to the addition.
- Pay any required fees.
- Provide an oath or declaration from the new inventor.
Failure to follow these steps may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally acknowledges a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) through an official response. This acknowledgment serves as confirmation that the request has been received and processed.
The MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides the standard language used by examiners to acknowledge such requests:
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.
In this acknowledgment:
- [1] refers to the name(s) of the inventor(s) requested to be deleted
- [2] indicates the filing date of the CPA
This official response confirms that the USPTO has processed the request and updated the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on USPTO acknowledgment, visit: USPTO acknowledgment.
Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:
- For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
- For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.
According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.
Important considerations:
- Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
- If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
- Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
- In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.
Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.
For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.
A 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.
Patent Procedure (15)
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.
For a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is the CPA request itself. This is explicitly stated in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).
According to MPEP ¶ 2.34:
“As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request.”
This means that when you file a CPA, the request itself serves as the necessary reference to the prior application, eliminating the need for additional amendments to the specification to establish continuity.
For more information on 35 U.S.C. 120, visit: 35 U.S.C. 120.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications.
While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use in the context of design applications:
Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2].
CPAs allow applicants to:
- Continue prosecution of a previously filed design application
- Make amendments or corrections, such as deleting a named inventor
- Potentially receive further examination without filing a new application
For more detailed information on CPAs, refer to MPEP § 201.06(d).
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design applications, visit: design applications.
For more information on patent prosecution, visit: patent prosecution.
For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.
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.
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.
When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:
- A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
- The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
- The filing date of the CPA
The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:
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].
In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.
To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a design application, the following requirements must be met:
- The application must be a design application.
- The prior application must be a nonprovisional application.
- The application must be filed before the earliest of:
- Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
- Abandonment of the prior application; or
- Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): “A continuation or divisional application that is a nonprovisional application may be filed as a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b).”
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on Divisional application, visit: Divisional application.
For more information on filing requirements, visit: filing requirements.
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.
When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can delete a named inventor by including a statement with your CPA filing. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 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.
This means you should provide a clear statement identifying the inventor(s) to be deleted when submitting your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge and process this request, correcting the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.
For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.
For more information on patent procedure, visit: patent procedure.
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.
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.
To correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you must follow the procedures outlined in 37 CFR 1.48. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states:
Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.
To add a new inventor:
- File a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship.
- Include a statement from the new inventor agreeing to the addition.
- Pay any required fees.
- Provide an oath or declaration from the new inventor.
Failure to follow these steps may result in the inventorship remaining the same as in the prior application.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally acknowledges a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) through an official response. This acknowledgment serves as confirmation that the request has been received and processed.
The MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides the standard language used by examiners to acknowledge such requests:
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.
In this acknowledgment:
- [1] refers to the name(s) of the inventor(s) requested to be deleted
- [2] indicates the filing date of the CPA
This official response confirms that the USPTO has processed the request and updated the inventorship accordingly.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on USPTO acknowledgment, visit: USPTO acknowledgment.
Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications:
- For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application.
- For applications filed before September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by amending the specification (if the claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental ADS to delete references to prior applications.
According to MPEP 211.02(a): The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted.
Important considerations:
- Deleting a benefit claim may expose your application to additional prior art, potentially affecting its patentability.
- If you delete a benefit claim after final rejection or allowance, the amendment will be treated under special rules (37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively).
- Deleting a benefit claim may be seen as intentionally waiving the benefit claim. If you later try to reinstate it, the USPTO may not accept it as unintentionally delayed.
- In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you cannot delete the reference to the prior application with the same application number.
Always carefully consider the implications before deleting a benefit claim, and consult with a patent attorney if you’re unsure about the consequences.
For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.
For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.
For more information on prior art, visit: prior art.
A 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.