Patent Law FAQ

According to 37 CFR 1.11(a), the following patent application files are open to public inspection:

• Published applications
• Patents
• Statutory invention registrations

The public can obtain copies of these files upon payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(2). However, if an application was published in redacted form, the complete file may not be available if certain requirements are met and the application is still pending.

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.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are limited to specific types of patent applications:

• Design Applications: CPAs are available for design applications filed before May 29, 2000.
• Plant Applications: CPAs can be used for plant patent applications.

It’s important to note that CPAs are not available for utility patent applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these applications, applicants should use a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 provides guidance on how CPAs reference prior applications:

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 for eligible applications, the CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application without requiring amendments to the specification.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are specifically for design patent applications. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 refers to CPAs in the context of design applications.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 states: “In bracket 2, insert either –continuation– or –divisional–.”

This indicates that a CPA can be filed as either a continuation or a divisional of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant patent applications.

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

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

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

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.

In the first Office action of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), examiners should include specific information to advise the applicant about the status of their application. The MPEP ¶ 2.35 provides guidance on this matter:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a ‘conditional’ request for a CPA is treated as an unconditional request and the CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established.

This notice is crucial because:

• Applicants are not notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

By including this information, examiners ensure that applicants are fully informed about the status and treatment of their CPA request.

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

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a single international design application to seek protection in multiple countries. The United States became a party to the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015.

According to 35 U.S.C. 385:

An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16.

This means that an international design application that designates the US is treated similarly to a national design patent application. The MPEP clarifies: Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to ‘design application’ or ‘application for a design patent’ in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.

For detailed information on international design applications, refer to MPEP Chapter 2900.

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

For more information on Hague Agreement, visit: Hague Agreement.

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

There is a significant difference in how Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are treated for utility/plant applications versus design applications. According to the examiner’s note in MPEP ¶ 2.35:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This indicates that for utility or plant applications, an improper CPA request is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). However, for design applications, CPA requests are generally accepted and processed as described in MPEP ¶ 2.35. This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their continued prosecution options.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are primarily used for design patent applications. For utility or plant applications, improper CPA requests are typically treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.35 notes:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their options for continuing prosecution of their patent applications.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is not submitted on a separate paper, it will be considered non-compliant and will not be processed by the USPTO.

The MPEP clearly states: ‘Because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’ This means that the CPA will not be initiated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the request properly to proceed with the continued examination.

In such cases, the USPTO will typically send a notification to the applicant informing them of the non-compliance and providing instructions for proper submission.

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

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

To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the following requirements must be met:

• The application must be for a design patent
• The prior application must be a complete design application as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee in the prior application
  • Abandonment of the prior application
  • Termination of proceedings in the prior application

Additionally, the CPA must include a request on a separate paper, identify the prior application, and be accompanied by the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee.

To learn more:

• CPA Requirements
• Design Patents
• Patent Application Filing

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have several key differences from regular continuation applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility or plant applications
• CPAs use the same application number as the prior application
• CPAs do not require a new specification or drawings to be filed
• The filing requirements for a CPA are minimal compared to a regular continuation
• CPAs are typically processed faster than regular continuations
• Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) states: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

To file a CPA for a design patent application, the following requirements must be met:

• The prior application must be a design application that is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings in the prior application
• The CPA must be filed with a request on a separate paper
• The proper filing fee, search fee, and examination fee must be paid
• The CPA must only disclose and claim subject matter disclosed in the prior application

As stated in the MPEP: “The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.”

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

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

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

Filing a CPA for a design patent application offers several benefits:

• Minimal filing requirements compared to a regular continuation application
• No new filing receipt is normally issued
• Faster processing time, as it uses the same application number and file wrapper
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as “amended” applications rather than “new” applications, potentially resulting in faster examination
• The prior application is automatically abandoned, simplifying the process

As stated in the MPEP: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents has several advantages over filing a regular continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• Minimal filing requirements – only a request on a separate paper and the filing fee are needed
• No new oath or declaration is required
• Faster processing – the CPA uses the file and contents of the prior application
• Potentially faster examination – CPAs are often treated as “amended” applications for examination priority
• No need for a new specification or drawings

The MPEP notes: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is found to be non-compliant, the USPTO notifies the applicant using a specific form paragraph. This notification informs the applicant about the issue and provides necessary details.

According to the MPEP, the examiner uses the following format:

• ‘Receipt is acknowledged of the request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on Application No. [2].’
• ‘However, because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’

In this notification, [1] represents the filing date of the paper containing the CPA request, and [2] is the Application Number identified in the CPA request. This clear communication helps applicants understand the issue and take corrective action.

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

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined differently from other types of patent applications. For a CPA, the filing date is the date on which a request for a CPA is filed on a separate paper.

The MPEP states: The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.

This means that unlike regular applications where the filing date is typically the date all required components are received, a CPA’s filing date is based solely on when the CPA request is submitted, provided it meets the necessary requirements.

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is established, the examiner notifies the applicant in the first Office action of the CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph:

“The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.”

This notification is important because:

• Applicants are not separately notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

Therefore, this Office action serves as the official notification that the CPA has been properly established.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) differs from other types of continuing applications in several ways:

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility applications.
• Filing a CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, without needing to amend the specification.
• CPAs are processed differently from other continuing applications, as outlined in MPEP § 201.06(d).

The MPEP states: ‘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 unique feature distinguishes CPAs from other types of continuing applications, such as continuations or divisionals, which may require explicit references in the specification.

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.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the priority claim to its parent application without requiring a separate reference. The CPA itself serves as the specific reference required under 35 U.S.C. 120.

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).

This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a priority claim to the parent application and any earlier applications in the priority chain without additional paperwork.

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has several effects on the examination process:

• The CPA is treated as a continuation of the prior application for examination purposes
• Information Disclosure Statements from the prior application are automatically considered in the CPA
• Affidavits and declarations from the prior application carry over to the CPA
• A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to the CPA
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as ‘amended’ applications rather than ‘new’ applications if an Office action was issued in the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) notes: For examination priority purposes only, the USPTO will treat continuation CPAs as if they were ‘amended’ applications (as of the CPA filing date) and not as ‘new’ applications. This treatment is limited to CPAs in which the prior application has an Office action issued by the examiner.

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

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.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents can be corrected by filing a statement requesting the deletion of a named inventor 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.

This process allows for immediate correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. However, it’s important to note that 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 CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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.

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can request the deletion of a named inventor by submitting 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 that you should include a clear statement requesting the deletion of the specific inventor(s) when you file your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge this request and correct the inventorship accordingly.

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

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

To claim benefit of an international design application designating the United States, the following requirements must be met:

• The claim must be made in a nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application filed on or after May 13, 2015
• The international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023
• The claim must meet the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120

MPEP 211.01(d) states: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

It’s important to note that this benefit can only be claimed in applications or patents filed on or after May 13, 2015, as specified in 37 CFR 1.78(j).

To learn more:

• international design applications
• benefit claims
• design patents
• patent law

Yes, there are exceptions to the standard time limits for filing foreign priority claims, particularly for design patent applications and certain applications filed before November 29, 2000. According to 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1):

The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.

For design patent applications, the MPEP states:

In a design application, a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(g).

This means that for design patent applications, you can file a foreign priority claim at any time while the application is pending, without being restricted by the usual time limits.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000, different rules may apply, and it’s best to consult with a patent attorney or the USPTO directly for guidance on such cases.

It’s important to note that while these exceptions exist, it’s generally advisable to file priority claims as early as possible to ensure they are properly recorded and considered.

No, CPAs are not available for all types of patent applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, CPAs are primarily used for design 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 indicates that CPAs are not typically used for utility or plant patent applications, and such requests may be treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

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

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

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

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are not available for all types of patent applications. They are specifically limited to design patent applications. This is evident from the MPEP guidance, which states:

‘Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) and, therefore, no CPA has been established.’

This statement clearly indicates that CPAs are associated with design applications. For utility and plant patent applications, other continuation options are available, such as:

• Continuation Applications
• Divisional Applications
• Continuation-in-Part Applications

It’s important for inventors and patent practitioners to understand these distinctions to choose the appropriate type of continuing application for their specific situation.

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

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

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

The three main types of patent applications that can be filed in the USPTO are:

1. Utility patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 101) for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
2. Design patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 171) for “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture”
3. Plant patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 161) for “whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant”

A design patent application is a type of patent application that protects the ornamental design of a functional item. It is governed by 35 U.S.C. 171-173 and focuses on the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect the functional aspects of an invention. Design patent applications have specific requirements for drawings and claim format. For more information on design patent applications, refer to MPEP 1501.

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) of 2012 introduced several important changes to US patent law, particularly regarding priority claims and international applications. Key changes include:

• Restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in certain cases
• Ability to file international design applications
• Ability to claim priority to, and benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications

The MPEP states: “Notable changes to the law and rules included the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. In addition, title I of the PLTIA became effective May 13, 2015, along with corresponding revisions to the rules. Notable changes included the ability to file international design applications and to claim priority to, and the benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications.”

According to the MPEP, patent applications can be directed to three broad types of subject matter:

• Utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
• Plant patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 161
• Design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 171

Design and plant patent applications are two distinct types of patent applications, each protecting different aspects of inventions:

Design Patent Applications:
1. Protect the ornamental design of a functional item.
2. Cover the visual appearance of an article of manufacture.
3. Have a term of 15 years from the date of grant.
4. Require drawings or photographs of the design.
5. Do not require a written description of the invention.

Plant Patent Applications:
1. Protect new varieties of asexually reproduced plants.
2. Cover the entire plant, not just a specific part.
3. Have a term of 20 years from the filing date.
4. Require a detailed botanical description of the plant.
5. May include drawings or photographs to illustrate the plant’s characteristics.

For more information, refer to MPEP 201.06 for design patents and MPEP 201.07 for plant patents.

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.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are limited to specific types of patent applications:

• Design Applications: CPAs are available for design applications filed before May 29, 2000.
• Plant Applications: CPAs can be used for plant patent applications.

It’s important to note that CPAs are not available for utility patent applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these applications, applicants should use a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 provides guidance on how CPAs reference prior applications:

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 for eligible applications, the CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application without requiring amendments to the specification.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

The three main types of patent applications that can be filed in the USPTO are:

1. Utility patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 101) for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
2. Design patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 171) for “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture”
3. Plant patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 161) for “whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are specifically for design patent applications. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 refers to CPAs in the context of design applications.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 states: “In bracket 2, insert either –continuation– or –divisional–.”

This indicates that a CPA can be filed as either a continuation or a divisional of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant patent applications.

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

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

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

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.

In the first Office action of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), examiners should include specific information to advise the applicant about the status of their application. The MPEP ¶ 2.35 provides guidance on this matter:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a ‘conditional’ request for a CPA is treated as an unconditional request and the CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established.

This notice is crucial because:

• Applicants are not notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

By including this information, examiners ensure that applicants are fully informed about the status and treatment of their CPA request.

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

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a single international design application to seek protection in multiple countries. The United States became a party to the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015.

According to 35 U.S.C. 385:

An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16.

This means that an international design application that designates the US is treated similarly to a national design patent application. The MPEP clarifies: Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to ‘design application’ or ‘application for a design patent’ in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.

For detailed information on international design applications, refer to MPEP Chapter 2900.

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

For more information on Hague Agreement, visit: Hague Agreement.

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

There is a significant difference in how Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are treated for utility/plant applications versus design applications. According to the examiner’s note in MPEP ¶ 2.35:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This indicates that for utility or plant applications, an improper CPA request is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). However, for design applications, CPA requests are generally accepted and processed as described in MPEP ¶ 2.35. This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their continued prosecution options.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are primarily used for design patent applications. For utility or plant applications, improper CPA requests are typically treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.35 notes:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their options for continuing prosecution of their patent applications.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

A design patent application is a type of patent application that protects the ornamental design of a functional item. It is governed by 35 U.S.C. 171-173 and focuses on the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect the functional aspects of an invention. Design patent applications have specific requirements for drawings and claim format. For more information on design patent applications, refer to MPEP 1501.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is not submitted on a separate paper, it will be considered non-compliant and will not be processed by the USPTO.

The MPEP clearly states: ‘Because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’ This means that the CPA will not be initiated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the request properly to proceed with the continued examination.

In such cases, the USPTO will typically send a notification to the applicant informing them of the non-compliance and providing instructions for proper submission.

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

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

According to the MPEP, patent applications can be directed to three broad types of subject matter:

• Utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
• Plant patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 161
• Design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 171

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have several key differences from regular continuation applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility or plant applications
• CPAs use the same application number as the prior application
• CPAs do not require a new specification or drawings to be filed
• The filing requirements for a CPA are minimal compared to a regular continuation
• CPAs are typically processed faster than regular continuations
• Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) states: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

To file a CPA for a design patent application, the following requirements must be met:

• The prior application must be a design application that is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings in the prior application
• The CPA must be filed with a request on a separate paper
• The proper filing fee, search fee, and examination fee must be paid
• The CPA must only disclose and claim subject matter disclosed in the prior application

As stated in the MPEP: “The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.”

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

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

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

Design and plant patent applications are two distinct types of patent applications, each protecting different aspects of inventions:

Design Patent Applications:
1. Protect the ornamental design of a functional item.
2. Cover the visual appearance of an article of manufacture.
3. Have a term of 15 years from the date of grant.
4. Require drawings or photographs of the design.
5. Do not require a written description of the invention.

Plant Patent Applications:
1. Protect new varieties of asexually reproduced plants.
2. Cover the entire plant, not just a specific part.
3. Have a term of 20 years from the filing date.
4. Require a detailed botanical description of the plant.
5. May include drawings or photographs to illustrate the plant’s characteristics.

For more information, refer to MPEP 201.06 for design patents and MPEP 201.07 for plant patents.

Filing a CPA for a design patent application offers several benefits:

• Minimal filing requirements compared to a regular continuation application
• No new filing receipt is normally issued
• Faster processing time, as it uses the same application number and file wrapper
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as “amended” applications rather than “new” applications, potentially resulting in faster examination
• The prior application is automatically abandoned, simplifying the process

As stated in the MPEP: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents has several advantages over filing a regular continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• Minimal filing requirements – only a request on a separate paper and the filing fee are needed
• No new oath or declaration is required
• Faster processing – the CPA uses the file and contents of the prior application
• Potentially faster examination – CPAs are often treated as “amended” applications for examination priority
• No need for a new specification or drawings

The MPEP notes: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is found to be non-compliant, the USPTO notifies the applicant using a specific form paragraph. This notification informs the applicant about the issue and provides necessary details.

According to the MPEP, the examiner uses the following format:

• ‘Receipt is acknowledged of the request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on Application No. [2].’
• ‘However, because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’

In this notification, [1] represents the filing date of the paper containing the CPA request, and [2] is the Application Number identified in the CPA request. This clear communication helps applicants understand the issue and take corrective action.

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

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined differently from other types of patent applications. For a CPA, the filing date is the date on which a request for a CPA is filed on a separate paper.

The MPEP states: The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.

This means that unlike regular applications where the filing date is typically the date all required components are received, a CPA’s filing date is based solely on when the CPA request is submitted, provided it meets the necessary requirements.

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is established, the examiner notifies the applicant in the first Office action of the CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph:

“The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.”

This notification is important because:

• Applicants are not separately notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

Therefore, this Office action serves as the official notification that the CPA has been properly established.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) differs from other types of continuing applications in several ways:

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility applications.
• Filing a CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, without needing to amend the specification.
• CPAs are processed differently from other continuing applications, as outlined in MPEP § 201.06(d).

The MPEP states: ‘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 unique feature distinguishes CPAs from other types of continuing applications, such as continuations or divisionals, which may require explicit references in the specification.

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.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the priority claim to its parent application without requiring a separate reference. The CPA itself serves as the specific reference required under 35 U.S.C. 120.

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).

This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a priority claim to the parent application and any earlier applications in the priority chain without additional paperwork.

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has several effects on the examination process:

• The CPA is treated as a continuation of the prior application for examination purposes
• Information Disclosure Statements from the prior application are automatically considered in the CPA
• Affidavits and declarations from the prior application carry over to the CPA
• A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to the CPA
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as ‘amended’ applications rather than ‘new’ applications if an Office action was issued in the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) notes: For examination priority purposes only, the USPTO will treat continuation CPAs as if they were ‘amended’ applications (as of the CPA filing date) and not as ‘new’ applications. This treatment is limited to CPAs in which the prior application has an Office action issued by the examiner.

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

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.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents can be corrected by filing a statement requesting the deletion of a named inventor 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.

This process allows for immediate correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. However, it’s important to note that 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 CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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.

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can request the deletion of a named inventor by submitting 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 that you should include a clear statement requesting the deletion of the specific inventor(s) when you file your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge this request and correct the inventorship accordingly.

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

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

No, CPAs are not available for all types of patent applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, CPAs are primarily used for design 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 indicates that CPAs are not typically used for utility or plant patent applications, and such requests may be treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

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

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

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

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are not available for all types of patent applications. They are specifically limited to design patent applications. This is evident from the MPEP guidance, which states:

‘Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) and, therefore, no CPA has been established.’

This statement clearly indicates that CPAs are associated with design applications. For utility and plant patent applications, other continuation options are available, such as:

• Continuation Applications
• Divisional Applications
• Continuation-in-Part Applications

It’s important for inventors and patent practitioners to understand these distinctions to choose the appropriate type of continuing application for their specific situation.

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

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

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

Yes, there are exceptions to the standard time limits for filing foreign priority claims, particularly for design patent applications and certain applications filed before November 29, 2000. According to 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1):

The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.

For design patent applications, the MPEP states:

In a design application, a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(g).

This means that for design patent applications, you can file a foreign priority claim at any time while the application is pending, without being restricted by the usual time limits.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000, different rules may apply, and it’s best to consult with a patent attorney or the USPTO directly for guidance on such cases.

It’s important to note that while these exceptions exist, it’s generally advisable to file priority claims as early as possible to ensure they are properly recorded and considered.

The USPTO assigns different series codes to various types of patent applications:

• 01/ – 16/: Nonprovisional applications (utility, plant, and reissue)
• 29/: Design applications
• 35/: International design applications
• 60/, 61/, and 62/: Provisional applications
• 90/: Ex parte reexamination proceedings
• 95/: Inter partes reexamination proceedings
• 96/: Supplemental examination proceedings and resulting ex parte reexamination proceedings

The MPEP provides a detailed breakdown of series codes for nonprovisional applications from 1925 to the present. For example, ‘Series code 16 is assigned to nonprovisional applications filed from June 2018 to present.’ (MPEP 503)

The USPTO assigns different series codes to various types of patent applications:

• 01/ – 16/: Nonprovisional applications (utility, plant, and reissue)
• 29/: Design applications
• 35/: International design applications
• 60/, 61/, and 62/: Provisional applications
• 90/: Ex parte reexamination proceedings
• 95/: Inter partes reexamination proceedings
• 96/: Supplemental examination proceedings and resulting ex parte reexamination proceedings

The MPEP provides a detailed breakdown of series codes for nonprovisional applications from 1925 to the present. For example, ‘Series code 16 is assigned to nonprovisional applications filed from June 2018 to present.’ (MPEP 503)

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.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are limited to specific types of patent applications:

• Design Applications: CPAs are available for design applications filed before May 29, 2000.
• Plant Applications: CPAs can be used for plant patent applications.

It’s important to note that CPAs are not available for utility patent applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these applications, applicants should use a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 provides guidance on how CPAs reference prior applications:

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 for eligible applications, the CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application without requiring amendments to the specification.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

The three main types of patent applications that can be filed in the USPTO are:

1. Utility patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 101) for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
2. Design patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 171) for “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture”
3. Plant patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 161) for “whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are specifically for design patent applications. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 refers to CPAs in the context of design applications.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 states: “In bracket 2, insert either –continuation– or –divisional–.”

This indicates that a CPA can be filed as either a continuation or a divisional of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant patent applications.

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

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

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

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.

In the first Office action of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), examiners should include specific information to advise the applicant about the status of their application. The MPEP ¶ 2.35 provides guidance on this matter:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a ‘conditional’ request for a CPA is treated as an unconditional request and the CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established.

This notice is crucial because:

• Applicants are not notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

By including this information, examiners ensure that applicants are fully informed about the status and treatment of their CPA request.

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

According to 37 CFR 1.11(a), the following patent application files are open to public inspection:

• Published applications
• Patents
• Statutory invention registrations

The public can obtain copies of these files upon payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(2). However, if an application was published in redacted form, the complete file may not be available if certain requirements are met and the application is still pending.

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a single international design application to seek protection in multiple countries. The United States became a party to the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015.

According to 35 U.S.C. 385:

An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16.

This means that an international design application that designates the US is treated similarly to a national design patent application. The MPEP clarifies: Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to ‘design application’ or ‘application for a design patent’ in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.

For detailed information on international design applications, refer to MPEP Chapter 2900.

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

For more information on Hague Agreement, visit: Hague Agreement.

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

There is a significant difference in how Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are treated for utility/plant applications versus design applications. According to the examiner’s note in MPEP ¶ 2.35:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This indicates that for utility or plant applications, an improper CPA request is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). However, for design applications, CPA requests are generally accepted and processed as described in MPEP ¶ 2.35. This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their continued prosecution options.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are primarily used for design patent applications. For utility or plant applications, improper CPA requests are typically treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.35 notes:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their options for continuing prosecution of their patent applications.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

A design patent application is a type of patent application that protects the ornamental design of a functional item. It is governed by 35 U.S.C. 171-173 and focuses on the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect the functional aspects of an invention. Design patent applications have specific requirements for drawings and claim format. For more information on design patent applications, refer to MPEP 1501.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is not submitted on a separate paper, it will be considered non-compliant and will not be processed by the USPTO.

The MPEP clearly states: ‘Because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’ This means that the CPA will not be initiated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the request properly to proceed with the continued examination.

In such cases, the USPTO will typically send a notification to the applicant informing them of the non-compliance and providing instructions for proper submission.

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

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

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) of 2012 introduced several important changes to US patent law, particularly regarding priority claims and international applications. Key changes include:

• Restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in certain cases
• Ability to file international design applications
• Ability to claim priority to, and benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications

The MPEP states: “Notable changes to the law and rules included the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. In addition, title I of the PLTIA became effective May 13, 2015, along with corresponding revisions to the rules. Notable changes included the ability to file international design applications and to claim priority to, and the benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications.”

According to the MPEP, patent applications can be directed to three broad types of subject matter:

• Utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
• Plant patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 161
• Design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 171

The USPTO assigns different series codes to various types of patent applications:

• 01/ – 16/: Nonprovisional applications (utility, plant, and reissue)
• 29/: Design applications
• 35/: International design applications
• 60/, 61/, and 62/: Provisional applications
• 90/: Ex parte reexamination proceedings
• 95/: Inter partes reexamination proceedings
• 96/: Supplemental examination proceedings and resulting ex parte reexamination proceedings

The MPEP provides a detailed breakdown of series codes for nonprovisional applications from 1925 to the present. For example, ‘Series code 16 is assigned to nonprovisional applications filed from June 2018 to present.’ (MPEP 503)

To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the following requirements must be met:

• The application must be for a design patent
• The prior application must be a complete design application as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee in the prior application
  • Abandonment of the prior application
  • Termination of proceedings in the prior application

Additionally, the CPA must include a request on a separate paper, identify the prior application, and be accompanied by the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee.

To learn more:

• CPA Requirements
• Design Patents
• Patent Application Filing

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have several key differences from regular continuation applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility or plant applications
• CPAs use the same application number as the prior application
• CPAs do not require a new specification or drawings to be filed
• The filing requirements for a CPA are minimal compared to a regular continuation
• CPAs are typically processed faster than regular continuations
• Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) states: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

To file a CPA for a design patent application, the following requirements must be met:

• The prior application must be a design application that is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings in the prior application
• The CPA must be filed with a request on a separate paper
• The proper filing fee, search fee, and examination fee must be paid
• The CPA must only disclose and claim subject matter disclosed in the prior application

As stated in the MPEP: “The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.”

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

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

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

Design and plant patent applications are two distinct types of patent applications, each protecting different aspects of inventions:

Design Patent Applications:
1. Protect the ornamental design of a functional item.
2. Cover the visual appearance of an article of manufacture.
3. Have a term of 15 years from the date of grant.
4. Require drawings or photographs of the design.
5. Do not require a written description of the invention.

Plant Patent Applications:
1. Protect new varieties of asexually reproduced plants.
2. Cover the entire plant, not just a specific part.
3. Have a term of 20 years from the filing date.
4. Require a detailed botanical description of the plant.
5. May include drawings or photographs to illustrate the plant’s characteristics.

For more information, refer to MPEP 201.06 for design patents and MPEP 201.07 for plant patents.

Filing a CPA for a design patent application offers several benefits:

• Minimal filing requirements compared to a regular continuation application
• No new filing receipt is normally issued
• Faster processing time, as it uses the same application number and file wrapper
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as “amended” applications rather than “new” applications, potentially resulting in faster examination
• The prior application is automatically abandoned, simplifying the process

As stated in the MPEP: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents has several advantages over filing a regular continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• Minimal filing requirements – only a request on a separate paper and the filing fee are needed
• No new oath or declaration is required
• Faster processing – the CPA uses the file and contents of the prior application
• Potentially faster examination – CPAs are often treated as “amended” applications for examination priority
• No need for a new specification or drawings

The MPEP notes: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is found to be non-compliant, the USPTO notifies the applicant using a specific form paragraph. This notification informs the applicant about the issue and provides necessary details.

According to the MPEP, the examiner uses the following format:

• ‘Receipt is acknowledged of the request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on Application No. [2].’
• ‘However, because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’

In this notification, [1] represents the filing date of the paper containing the CPA request, and [2] is the Application Number identified in the CPA request. This clear communication helps applicants understand the issue and take corrective action.

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

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined differently from other types of patent applications. For a CPA, the filing date is the date on which a request for a CPA is filed on a separate paper.

The MPEP states: The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.

This means that unlike regular applications where the filing date is typically the date all required components are received, a CPA’s filing date is based solely on when the CPA request is submitted, provided it meets the necessary requirements.

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is established, the examiner notifies the applicant in the first Office action of the CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph:

“The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.”

This notification is important because:

• Applicants are not separately notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

Therefore, this Office action serves as the official notification that the CPA has been properly established.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) differs from other types of continuing applications in several ways:

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility applications.
• Filing a CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, without needing to amend the specification.
• CPAs are processed differently from other continuing applications, as outlined in MPEP § 201.06(d).

The MPEP states: ‘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 unique feature distinguishes CPAs from other types of continuing applications, such as continuations or divisionals, which may require explicit references in the specification.

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.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the priority claim to its parent application without requiring a separate reference. The CPA itself serves as the specific reference required under 35 U.S.C. 120.

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).

This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a priority claim to the parent application and any earlier applications in the priority chain without additional paperwork.

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has several effects on the examination process:

• The CPA is treated as a continuation of the prior application for examination purposes
• Information Disclosure Statements from the prior application are automatically considered in the CPA
• Affidavits and declarations from the prior application carry over to the CPA
• A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to the CPA
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as ‘amended’ applications rather than ‘new’ applications if an Office action was issued in the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) notes: For examination priority purposes only, the USPTO will treat continuation CPAs as if they were ‘amended’ applications (as of the CPA filing date) and not as ‘new’ applications. This treatment is limited to CPAs in which the prior application has an Office action issued by the examiner.

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

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.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents can be corrected by filing a statement requesting the deletion of a named inventor 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.

This process allows for immediate correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. However, it’s important to note that 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 CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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.

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can request the deletion of a named inventor by submitting 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 that you should include a clear statement requesting the deletion of the specific inventor(s) when you file your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge this request and correct the inventorship accordingly.

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

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

To claim benefit of an international design application designating the United States, the following requirements must be met:

• The claim must be made in a nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application filed on or after May 13, 2015
• The international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023
• The claim must meet the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120

MPEP 211.01(d) states: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

It’s important to note that this benefit can only be claimed in applications or patents filed on or after May 13, 2015, as specified in 37 CFR 1.78(j).

To learn more:

• international design applications
• benefit claims
• design patents
• patent law

For utility and design patent applications, as well as related proceedings, color drawings and photographs are handled as follows, according to MPEP 608.02(c):

Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

To break this down:

• Color drawings and photographs are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository)
• A black and white copy is stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper)
• A SCORE placeholder sheet is included in the IFW

This applies to various types of applications and proceedings, including nonprovisional utility and design patent applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• color photographs
• utility patents
• design patents
• SCORE
• IFW

Black and white line drawings are handled differently depending on the type of application:

• For provisional applications, nonprovisional utility patent applications, international applications (PCT), national stage applications, and reexamination proceedings for utility patents, they are converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper).
• For design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents, they are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository), with a black and white copy stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

As stated in the MPEP: Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.

To learn more:

• patent drawings
• IFW
• SCORE
• TIFF images
• utility patents
• design patents

Can I use color drawings in my patent application?

Yes, you can use color drawings in your patent application, but they require special approval. According to MPEP 608.02:

‘Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii) and the specification must contain the reference required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii).’

For utility patent applications, color drawings are not ordinarily permitted. However, the USPTO will accept color drawings if:

• A petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is filed
• The fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) is paid
• Three sets of color drawings or color photographs are submitted

The petition must explain why color drawings are necessary to accurately depict the invention.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• patent application
• design patents
• utility patents

Can a patent application be filed without drawings?

In most cases, a patent application should include drawings if they are necessary to understand the invention. However, there are situations where an application can be filed without drawings. As stated in MPEP 601.01(f): ‘If the specification includes a sequence listing or large tables, those elements may be submitted as electronic files in ASCII text format.’

For applications that do require drawings, but are filed without them, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts. The applicant can then submit the drawings within a specified time period, typically two months, extendable up to seven months with fees. However, it’s important to note that adding new drawings may be considered new matter if they introduce elements not described in the original specification.

Design patent applications, which are based entirely on the visual appearance of an item, always require drawings and cannot be filed without them.

To learn more:

• patent application
• drawings
• missing drawings
• Notice to File Missing Parts
• design patents

Yes, there are exceptions to the standard time limits for filing foreign priority claims, particularly for design patent applications and certain applications filed before November 29, 2000. According to 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1):

The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.

For design patent applications, the MPEP states:

In a design application, a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(g).

This means that for design patent applications, you can file a foreign priority claim at any time while the application is pending, without being restricted by the usual time limits.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000, different rules may apply, and it’s best to consult with a patent attorney or the USPTO directly for guidance on such cases.

It’s important to note that while these exceptions exist, it’s generally advisable to file priority claims as early as possible to ensure they are properly recorded and considered.

Photographs are generally not permitted in utility and design patent applications, but exceptions exist. According to MPEP 608.01(f):

Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.

Examples of acceptable photographs include:

• Electrophoresis gels
• Blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern)
• Cell cultures
• Histological tissue cross sections
• In vivo imaging
• Crystalline structures
• Ornamental effects (in design patent applications)

The photographs must be of sufficient quality to ensure all details are reproducible in the printed patent. If the subject matter can be illustrated by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing instead of a photograph.

To learn more:

• photographs
• patent applications
• utility patents
• design patents

No, CPAs are not available for all types of patent applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, CPAs are primarily used for design 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 indicates that CPAs are not typically used for utility or plant patent applications, and such requests may be treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

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

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

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

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are not available for all types of patent applications. They are specifically limited to design patent applications. This is evident from the MPEP guidance, which states:

‘Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) and, therefore, no CPA has been established.’

This statement clearly indicates that CPAs are associated with design applications. For utility and plant patent applications, other continuation options are available, such as:

• Continuation Applications
• Divisional Applications
• Continuation-in-Part Applications

It’s important for inventors and patent practitioners to understand these distinctions to choose the appropriate type of continuing application for their specific situation.

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

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

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

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.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are limited to specific types of patent applications:

• Design Applications: CPAs are available for design applications filed before May 29, 2000.
• Plant Applications: CPAs can be used for plant patent applications.

It’s important to note that CPAs are not available for utility patent applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. For these applications, applicants should use a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 provides guidance on how CPAs reference prior applications:

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 for eligible applications, the CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application without requiring amendments to the specification.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

The three main types of patent applications that can be filed in the USPTO are:

1. Utility patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 101) for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
2. Design patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 171) for “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture”
3. Plant patent applications (filed under 35 U.S.C. 161) for “whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are specifically for design patent applications. The MPEP ¶ 2.34 refers to CPAs in the context of design applications.

The MPEP ¶ 2.34 states: “In bracket 2, insert either –continuation– or –divisional–.”

This indicates that a CPA can be filed as either a continuation or a divisional of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are no longer available for utility or plant patent applications.

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

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

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

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.

In the first Office action of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), examiners should include specific information to advise the applicant about the status of their application. The MPEP ¶ 2.35 provides guidance on this matter:

Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a ‘conditional’ request for a CPA is treated as an unconditional request and the CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established.

This notice is crucial because:

• Applicants are not notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

By including this information, examiners ensure that applicants are fully informed about the status and treatment of their CPA request.

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

According to 37 CFR 1.11(a), the following patent application files are open to public inspection:

• Published applications
• Patents
• Statutory invention registrations

The public can obtain copies of these files upon payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(2). However, if an application was published in redacted form, the complete file may not be available if certain requirements are met and the application is still pending.

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs is an international treaty that allows applicants to file a single international design application to seek protection in multiple countries. The United States became a party to the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015.

According to 35 U.S.C. 385:

An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16.

This means that an international design application that designates the US is treated similarly to a national design patent application. The MPEP clarifies: Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to ‘design application’ or ‘application for a design patent’ in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.

For detailed information on international design applications, refer to MPEP Chapter 2900.

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

For more information on Hague Agreement, visit: Hague Agreement.

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

There is a significant difference in how Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are treated for utility/plant applications versus design applications. According to the examiner’s note in MPEP ¶ 2.35:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This indicates that for utility or plant applications, an improper CPA request is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). However, for design applications, CPA requests are generally accepted and processed as described in MPEP ¶ 2.35. This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their continued prosecution options.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are primarily used for design patent applications. For utility or plant applications, improper CPA requests are typically treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.35 notes:

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). See MPEP § 706.07(h).

This distinction is important for applicants to understand when considering their options for continuing prosecution of their patent applications.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

A design patent application is a type of patent application that protects the ornamental design of a functional item. It is governed by 35 U.S.C. 171-173 and focuses on the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect the functional aspects of an invention. Design patent applications have specific requirements for drawings and claim format. For more information on design patent applications, refer to MPEP 1501.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is not submitted on a separate paper, it will be considered non-compliant and will not be processed by the USPTO.

The MPEP clearly states: ‘Because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’ This means that the CPA will not be initiated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the request properly to proceed with the continued examination.

In such cases, the USPTO will typically send a notification to the applicant informing them of the non-compliance and providing instructions for proper submission.

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

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

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) of 2012 introduced several important changes to US patent law, particularly regarding priority claims and international applications. Key changes include:

• Restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in certain cases
• Ability to file international design applications
• Ability to claim priority to, and benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications

The MPEP states: “Notable changes to the law and rules included the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. In addition, title I of the PLTIA became effective May 13, 2015, along with corresponding revisions to the rules. Notable changes included the ability to file international design applications and to claim priority to, and the benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications.”

According to the MPEP, patent applications can be directed to three broad types of subject matter:

• Utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”
• Plant patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 161
• Design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 171

The USPTO assigns different series codes to various types of patent applications:

• 01/ – 16/: Nonprovisional applications (utility, plant, and reissue)
• 29/: Design applications
• 35/: International design applications
• 60/, 61/, and 62/: Provisional applications
• 90/: Ex parte reexamination proceedings
• 95/: Inter partes reexamination proceedings
• 96/: Supplemental examination proceedings and resulting ex parte reexamination proceedings

The MPEP provides a detailed breakdown of series codes for nonprovisional applications from 1925 to the present. For example, ‘Series code 16 is assigned to nonprovisional applications filed from June 2018 to present.’ (MPEP 503)

To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the following requirements must be met:

• The application must be for a design patent
• The prior application must be a complete design application as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of:
  • Payment of the issue fee in the prior application
  • Abandonment of the prior application
  • Termination of proceedings in the prior application

Additionally, the CPA must include a request on a separate paper, identify the prior application, and be accompanied by the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee.

To learn more:

• CPA Requirements
• Design Patents
• Patent Application Filing

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have several key differences from regular continuation applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility or plant applications
• CPAs use the same application number as the prior application
• CPAs do not require a new specification or drawings to be filed
• The filing requirements for a CPA are minimal compared to a regular continuation
• CPAs are typically processed faster than regular continuations
• Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) states: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

To file a CPA for a design patent application, the following requirements must be met:

• The prior application must be a design application that is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b)
• The CPA must be filed before the earliest of: payment of the issue fee, abandonment, or termination of proceedings in the prior application
• The CPA must be filed with a request on a separate paper
• The proper filing fee, search fee, and examination fee must be paid
• The CPA must only disclose and claim subject matter disclosed in the prior application

As stated in the MPEP: “The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.”

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

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

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

Design and plant patent applications are two distinct types of patent applications, each protecting different aspects of inventions:

Design Patent Applications:
1. Protect the ornamental design of a functional item.
2. Cover the visual appearance of an article of manufacture.
3. Have a term of 15 years from the date of grant.
4. Require drawings or photographs of the design.
5. Do not require a written description of the invention.

Plant Patent Applications:
1. Protect new varieties of asexually reproduced plants.
2. Cover the entire plant, not just a specific part.
3. Have a term of 20 years from the filing date.
4. Require a detailed botanical description of the plant.
5. May include drawings or photographs to illustrate the plant’s characteristics.

For more information, refer to MPEP 201.06 for design patents and MPEP 201.07 for plant patents.

Filing a CPA for a design patent application offers several benefits:

• Minimal filing requirements compared to a regular continuation application
• No new filing receipt is normally issued
• Faster processing time, as it uses the same application number and file wrapper
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as “amended” applications rather than “new” applications, potentially resulting in faster examination
• The prior application is automatically abandoned, simplifying the process

As stated in the MPEP: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents has several advantages over filing a regular continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b):

• Minimal filing requirements – only a request on a separate paper and the filing fee are needed
• No new oath or declaration is required
• Faster processing – the CPA uses the file and contents of the prior application
• Potentially faster examination – CPAs are often treated as “amended” applications for examination priority
• No need for a new specification or drawings

The MPEP notes: “A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).”

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

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is found to be non-compliant, the USPTO notifies the applicant using a specific form paragraph. This notification informs the applicant about the issue and provides necessary details.

According to the MPEP, the examiner uses the following format:

• ‘Receipt is acknowledged of the request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on Application No. [2].’
• ‘However, because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2), the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.’

In this notification, [1] represents the filing date of the paper containing the CPA request, and [2] is the Application Number identified in the CPA request. This clear communication helps applicants understand the issue and take corrective action.

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

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

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined differently from other types of patent applications. For a CPA, the filing date is the date on which a request for a CPA is filed on a separate paper.

The MPEP states: The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.

This means that unlike regular applications where the filing date is typically the date all required components are received, a CPA’s filing date is based solely on when the CPA request is submitted, provided it meets the necessary requirements.

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

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

When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is established, the examiner notifies the applicant in the first Office action of the CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph:

“The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.”

This notification is important because:

• Applicants are not separately notified of the abandonment of the parent application
• A filing receipt is not normally sent for a CPA

Therefore, this Office action serves as the official notification that the CPA has been properly established.

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

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) differs from other types of continuing applications in several ways:

• CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility applications.
• Filing a CPA automatically establishes the necessary reference to the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, without needing to amend the specification.
• CPAs are processed differently from other continuing applications, as outlined in MPEP § 201.06(d).

The MPEP states: ‘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 unique feature distinguishes CPAs from other types of continuing applications, such as continuations or divisionals, which may require explicit references in the specification.

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.

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

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the priority claim to its parent application without requiring a separate reference. The CPA itself serves as the specific reference required under 35 U.S.C. 120.

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).

This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a priority claim to the parent application and any earlier applications in the priority chain without additional paperwork.

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

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

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

Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) has several effects on the examination process:

• The CPA is treated as a continuation of the prior application for examination purposes
• Information Disclosure Statements from the prior application are automatically considered in the CPA
• Affidavits and declarations from the prior application carry over to the CPA
• A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to the CPA
• For examination priority, CPAs are treated as ‘amended’ applications rather than ‘new’ applications if an Office action was issued in the prior application

MPEP 201.06(d) notes: For examination priority purposes only, the USPTO will treat continuation CPAs as if they were ‘amended’ applications (as of the CPA filing date) and not as ‘new’ applications. This treatment is limited to CPAs in which the prior application has an Office action issued by the examiner.

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

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

For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.

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.

Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents can be corrected by filing a statement requesting the deletion of a named inventor 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.

This process allows for immediate correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. However, it’s important to note that 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 CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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

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.

When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can request the deletion of a named inventor by submitting 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 that you should include a clear statement requesting the deletion of the specific inventor(s) when you file your CPA. The USPTO will then acknowledge this request and correct the inventorship accordingly.

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

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

To claim benefit of an international design application designating the United States, the following requirements must be met:

• The claim must be made in a nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application filed on or after May 13, 2015
• The international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023
• The claim must meet the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120

MPEP 211.01(d) states: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States.

It’s important to note that this benefit can only be claimed in applications or patents filed on or after May 13, 2015, as specified in 37 CFR 1.78(j).

To learn more:

• international design applications
• benefit claims
• design patents
• patent law

For utility and design patent applications, as well as related proceedings, color drawings and photographs are handled as follows, according to MPEP 608.02(c):

Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

To break this down:

• Color drawings and photographs are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository)
• A black and white copy is stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper)
• A SCORE placeholder sheet is included in the IFW

This applies to various types of applications and proceedings, including nonprovisional utility and design patent applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• color photographs
• utility patents
• design patents
• SCORE
• IFW

Black and white line drawings are handled differently depending on the type of application:

• For provisional applications, nonprovisional utility patent applications, international applications (PCT), national stage applications, and reexamination proceedings for utility patents, they are converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper).
• For design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents, they are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository), with a black and white copy stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

As stated in the MPEP: Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.

To learn more:

• patent drawings
• IFW
• SCORE
• TIFF images
• utility patents
• design patents

Can I use color drawings in my patent application?

Yes, you can use color drawings in your patent application, but they require special approval. According to MPEP 608.02:

‘Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii) and the specification must contain the reference required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii).’

For utility patent applications, color drawings are not ordinarily permitted. However, the USPTO will accept color drawings if:

• A petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is filed
• The fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) is paid
• Three sets of color drawings or color photographs are submitted

The petition must explain why color drawings are necessary to accurately depict the invention.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• patent application
• design patents
• utility patents

Can a patent application be filed without drawings?

In most cases, a patent application should include drawings if they are necessary to understand the invention. However, there are situations where an application can be filed without drawings. As stated in MPEP 601.01(f): ‘If the specification includes a sequence listing or large tables, those elements may be submitted as electronic files in ASCII text format.’

For applications that do require drawings, but are filed without them, the USPTO will send a Notice to File Missing Parts. The applicant can then submit the drawings within a specified time period, typically two months, extendable up to seven months with fees. However, it’s important to note that adding new drawings may be considered new matter if they introduce elements not described in the original specification.

Design patent applications, which are based entirely on the visual appearance of an item, always require drawings and cannot be filed without them.

To learn more:

• patent application
• drawings
• missing drawings
• Notice to File Missing Parts
• design patents

Yes, there are exceptions to the standard time limits for filing foreign priority claims, particularly for design patent applications and certain applications filed before November 29, 2000. According to 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1):

The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.

For design patent applications, the MPEP states:

In a design application, a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(g).

This means that for design patent applications, you can file a foreign priority claim at any time while the application is pending, without being restricted by the usual time limits.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000, different rules may apply, and it’s best to consult with a patent attorney or the USPTO directly for guidance on such cases.

It’s important to note that while these exceptions exist, it’s generally advisable to file priority claims as early as possible to ensure they are properly recorded and considered.

Photographs are generally not permitted in utility and design patent applications, but exceptions exist. According to MPEP 608.01(f):

Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.

Examples of acceptable photographs include:

• Electrophoresis gels
• Blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern)
• Cell cultures
• Histological tissue cross sections
• In vivo imaging
• Crystalline structures
• Ornamental effects (in design patent applications)

The photographs must be of sufficient quality to ensure all details are reproducible in the printed patent. If the subject matter can be illustrated by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing instead of a photograph.

To learn more:

• photographs
• patent applications
• utility patents
• design patents

No, CPAs are not available for all types of patent applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, CPAs are primarily used for design 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 indicates that CPAs are not typically used for utility or plant patent applications, and such requests may be treated as Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) instead.

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

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

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

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are not available for all types of patent applications. They are specifically limited to design patent applications. This is evident from the MPEP guidance, which states:

‘Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) and, therefore, no CPA has been established.’

This statement clearly indicates that CPAs are associated with design applications. For utility and plant patent applications, other continuation options are available, such as:

• Continuation Applications
• Divisional Applications
• Continuation-in-Part Applications

It’s important for inventors and patent practitioners to understand these distinctions to choose the appropriate type of continuing application for their specific situation.

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

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

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