Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Adjustments (1)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
And Extensions (1)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (1)
For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:
“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”
This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:
- Continuation
- Divisional
- Continuation-in-part
of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.
Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.
For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.
MPEP 211 – Claiming the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date Under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e) (1)
For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:
“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”
This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:
- Continuation
- Divisional
- Continuation-in-part
of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.
Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.
For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.
MPEP 2700 – Patent Terms (1)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
MPEP 2732 – Reduction Of Period Of Adjustment Of Patent Term (1)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
Patent Law (3)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
If an examiner determines that a continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the following steps will occur:
- The examiner will notify the applicant in the next Office action.
- The examiner will indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part (CIP).
According to MPEP 602.05: If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
It’s important to note that:
- Continuations and divisionals should not contain new matter relative to the prior application.
- If new matter is present, the application is more appropriately designated as a continuation-in-part.
- The redesignation as a CIP may have implications for the oath or declaration requirements and the application’s effective filing date for the new subject matter.
Applicants should carefully review their applications to ensure they are correctly designated and contain appropriate oaths or declarations based on their content and relationship to the prior application.
To learn more:
For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:
“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”
This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:
- Continuation
- Divisional
- Continuation-in-part
of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.
Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.
For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.
Patent Procedure (3)
Filing a continuing application can significantly impact patent term adjustment. According to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14):
“Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in 37 CFR 1.703 shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.”
This means:
- Any patent term adjustment accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing application.
- The patent term adjustment calculation for a continuing application starts from its actual filing date, not the filing date of the parent application.
- This applies to continuation applications, divisional applications, and continuation-in-part applications.
The MPEP explains the rationale: “If an applicant is filing a continuing application to obtain examination (for the first time) of an invention disclosed but not claimed or not elected for examination in the prior application or an invention neither disclosed nor claimed in the prior application, it is not appropriate for that applicant to obtain any benefit in the continuing application for examination delays that might have occurred in the prior application.”
This provision encourages applicants to pursue their inventions diligently in the original application rather than relying on continuing applications to extend patent term.
To learn more:
If an examiner determines that a continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the following steps will occur:
- The examiner will notify the applicant in the next Office action.
- The examiner will indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part (CIP).
According to MPEP 602.05: If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
It’s important to note that:
- Continuations and divisionals should not contain new matter relative to the prior application.
- If new matter is present, the application is more appropriately designated as a continuation-in-part.
- The redesignation as a CIP may have implications for the oath or declaration requirements and the application’s effective filing date for the new subject matter.
Applicants should carefully review their applications to ensure they are correctly designated and contain appropriate oaths or declarations based on their content and relationship to the prior application.
To learn more:
For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), which include continuations, divisionals, and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit claim must include specific information about the relationship between the applications. The MPEP states:
“For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.”
This means that when making a benefit claim, you must explicitly state whether the current application is a:
- Continuation
- Divisional
- Continuation-in-part
of the prior application. This information helps the USPTO and others understand the relationship between related applications and ensures proper examination and treatment of the claims.
Remember, this requirement is in addition to other necessary information for the benefit claim, such as the application number and filing date of the prior application.
For more information on divisional, visit: divisional.