Patent Law FAQ

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

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:

1. A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
2. The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
3. The filing date of the CPA

The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:

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

In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

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.

Yes, the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application can differ from the parent application, but there are specific requirements:

1. For continuation applications: The inventorship must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.

2. For CIP applications: The inventorship can change more significantly due to the addition of new matter.

The MPEP states for continuation applications: “The inventorship in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.”

For CIP applications, the MPEP notes: “A continuation-in-part application that has a sole inventor may also derive from an earlier application that has joint inventors and discloses only a portion of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a continuation-in-part application that has joint inventors may derive from an earlier application that has a sole inventor.”

Any changes in inventorship must be properly documented and may require a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

Yes, the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application can differ from the parent application, but there are specific requirements:

1. For continuation applications: The inventorship must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.

2. For CIP applications: The inventorship can change more significantly due to the addition of new matter.

The MPEP states for continuation applications: “The inventorship in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.”

For CIP applications, the MPEP notes: “A continuation-in-part application that has a sole inventor may also derive from an earlier application that has joint inventors and discloses only a portion of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a continuation-in-part application that has joint inventors may derive from an earlier application that has a sole inventor.”

Any changes in inventorship must be properly documented and may require a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

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

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:

1. A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
2. The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
3. The filing date of the CPA

The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:

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

In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

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.

According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:

“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109

The MPEP further clarifies:

“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.

To learn more:

• reduction to practice
• inventorship
• conception
• patent law

According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:

“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109

The MPEP further clarifies:

“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.

To learn more:

• reduction to practice
• inventorship
• conception
• patent law

According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:

“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109

The MPEP further clarifies:

“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.

To learn more:

• reduction to practice
• inventorship
• conception
• patent law

The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is determined according to 37 CFR 1.41(e), which states:

The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.

This means that applicants can change inventorship as to the U.S. at the time of national stage entry by simply filing an application data sheet naming the inventor or joint inventors with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.

If no application data sheet is provided, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the international application, including any changes made under PCT Rule 92bis. It’s important to note that 37 CFR 1.41(e) does not allow naming inventors via the inventor’s oath or declaration if an application data sheet is not provided.

To learn more:

• International application
• National stage entry
• Inventorship
• Application data sheet

Yes, the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application can differ from the parent application, but there are specific requirements:

1. For continuation applications: The inventorship must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.

2. For CIP applications: The inventorship can change more significantly due to the addition of new matter.

The MPEP states for continuation applications: “The inventorship in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.”

For CIP applications, the MPEP notes: “A continuation-in-part application that has a sole inventor may also derive from an earlier application that has joint inventors and discloses only a portion of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a continuation-in-part application that has joint inventors may derive from an earlier application that has a sole inventor.”

Any changes in inventorship must be properly documented and may require a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

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

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:

1. A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
2. The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
3. The filing date of the CPA

The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:

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

In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

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.

According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:

“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109

The MPEP further clarifies:

“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.

To learn more:

• reduction to practice
• inventorship
• conception
• patent law

The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is determined according to 37 CFR 1.41(e), which states:

The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.

This means that applicants can change inventorship as to the U.S. at the time of national stage entry by simply filing an application data sheet naming the inventor or joint inventors with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.

If no application data sheet is provided, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the international application, including any changes made under PCT Rule 92bis. It’s important to note that 37 CFR 1.41(e) does not allow naming inventors via the inventor’s oath or declaration if an application data sheet is not provided.

To learn more:

• International application
• National stage entry
• Inventorship
• Application data sheet

Yes, the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application can differ from the parent application, but there are specific requirements:

1. For continuation applications: The inventorship must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.

2. For CIP applications: The inventorship can change more significantly due to the addition of new matter.

The MPEP states for continuation applications: “The inventorship in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application.”

For CIP applications, the MPEP notes: “A continuation-in-part application that has a sole inventor may also derive from an earlier application that has joint inventors and discloses only a portion of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a continuation-in-part application that has joint inventors may derive from an earlier application that has a sole inventor.”

Any changes in inventorship must be properly documented and may require a request under 37 CFR 1.48.

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

According to MPEP ¶ 2.32:

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

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

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

When requesting to delete a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you should include specific information. According to MPEP ¶ 2.32, the request should contain:

1. A clear statement requesting the deletion of the inventor(s)
2. The name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted
3. The filing date of the CPA

The MPEP provides a template for acknowledging such requests:

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

In this template, [1] represents the name(s) of the inventor(s) to be deleted, and [2] is the filing date of the CPA. Ensure your request clearly specifies these details to facilitate proper processing by the USPTO.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on inventorship, visit: inventorship.

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

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

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.