Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Here’s the complete FAQ:
MPEP 200 - Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (13)
To claim priority based on an inventor’s certificate, applicants must meet specific requirements outlined in 37 CFR 1.55(l):
To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor’s certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration.
The affidavit or declaration must state that:
- The applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country
- This option existed for the particular subject matter of the invention
It’s important to note that the affidavit is only required to ascertain the general existence of this option in the foreign country, not to probe into the eligibility of the particular applicant.
To learn more:
What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?
Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:
‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’
The significance of copendency includes:
- Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
- Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
- Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.
Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
The affidavit required for claiming priority based on an inventor’s certificate serves a specific purpose, as outlined in MPEP 213.05:
The affidavit or declaration specified under 37 CFR 1.55(l) is only required for the purpose of ascertaining whether, in the country where the application for an inventor’s certificate originated, this option generally existed for applicants with respect to the particular subject matter of the invention involved.
The affidavit is not intended to investigate the specific applicant’s eligibility to exercise the option in their particular case. Rather, it’s meant to confirm that in the country where the inventor’s certificate was filed, applicants generally had the right to choose between applying for a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter in question.
This requirement ensures compliance with the treaty and statute governing priority rights, while recognizing that some countries may have restrictions based on factors such as employment or nationality.
To learn more:
The Paris Convention is an international treaty that establishes priority rights for patent applications. According to MPEP 213, “The right of priority is defined in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)” and is based on this convention. It allows inventors who file a patent application in one member country to claim priority for up to 12 months when filing in other member countries.
Key points of the Paris Convention include:
- Establishing a 12-month priority period for patents
- Allowing applicants to claim priority based on earlier filings in member countries
- Ensuring equal treatment of foreign and domestic applicants in member countries
An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):
Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…
This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.
To learn more:
What happens if I miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application?
If you miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application, you generally lose the ability to claim that earlier filing date. The MPEP 201.04 states:
“If a provisional application is not filed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.53(c), the provisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.”
Consequences of missing the deadline include:
- Loss of the earlier filing date
- Potential issues with prior art that emerged during the 12-month period
- Possible loss of patent rights in some jurisdictions
In some cases, you may be able to file a petition for an unintentional delay under 37 CFR 1.78(c), but this is not guaranteed and may involve additional fees. It’s crucial to monitor deadlines carefully to avoid these issues.
For more information on filing deadline, visit: filing deadline.
For more information on nonprovisional application, visit: nonprovisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:
It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.
This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.
To learn more:
The filing date of a continuation application can significantly affect its patent term. While the continuation application gets the benefit of the earlier filing date for prior art purposes, its actual filing date is used to calculate the patent term. According to MPEP 201.07:
The filing date of a continuation application is the filing date of the parent application.
However, this refers to the priority date for prior art purposes. The actual patent term is calculated from the filing date of the continuation application itself. Here’s how it works:
- The patent term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application to which priority is claimed.
- For a continuation application, this means 20 years from the filing date of the parent non-provisional application.
- Each continuation in a chain reduces the effective patent term.
It’s crucial to consider this when deciding whether to file a continuation or a new application, as it can impact the overall protection period for your invention.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on patent term, visit: patent term.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to earlier applications. 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. That is, the CPA includes the request for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the recitation of the application number of the prior application in such request is the ‘specific reference to the earlier filed application’ required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a benefit claim to the prior application and any earlier applications in the chain, without the need for a separate statement in the specification or application data sheet. However, if the prior application claimed benefit of earlier applications, those benefit claims must still be present in the prior application.
For more information on continuation applications, visit: continuation applications.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Can multiple provisional applications be filed for the same invention?
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be filed for the same invention. The MPEP 201.04 does not place restrictions on filing multiple provisionals. In fact, this practice can be beneficial for inventors who are continuously developing their invention.
Each provisional application establishes a potential priority date for the disclosed content. When filing a subsequent nonprovisional application, the applicant can claim the benefit of multiple provisional applications, potentially securing multiple priority dates for different aspects of the invention.
However, it’s important to note that each provisional application must still meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the disclosed subject matter to be eligible for the priority date.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be combined into a single non-provisional application. This is particularly useful when an inventor has made improvements or additions to their invention over time. The MPEP 201.04 states:
A nonprovisional application that was filed within 12 months of an earlier provisional application may claim the benefit of that provisional application.
While this quote doesn’t explicitly mention multiple provisionals, the USPTO allows claiming benefit from multiple provisional applications in a single non-provisional application, provided each provisional is properly referenced and the non-provisional is filed within 12 months of the earliest provisional application.
For more information on Non-provisional application, visit: Non-provisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
Yes, a continuation application can claim priority to multiple parent applications under certain conditions. According to MPEP 201.07:
‘A continuation application may be filed as a continuation of an earlier application of the same applicant… The continuation application may be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.’
This means that:
- The continuation must have at least one common inventor with the parent application(s).
- The continuation must be filed while at least one of the parent applications is still pending.
- The continuation cannot introduce new matter beyond what was disclosed in the parent application(s).
When claiming priority to multiple parents, the continuation essentially combines the disclosures of the parent applications, as long as they form a continuous chain of copending applications.
To learn more:
To learn more:
Yes, there can be subject matter restrictions when claiming priority based on inventor’s certificates. The MPEP 213.05 states:
Certain countries which grant both patents and inventor’s certificates issue only inventor’s certificates on certain subject matter, generally pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and cosmetics.
This means that for certain types of inventions, some countries may only offer inventor’s certificates and not patents. However, this doesn’t necessarily prevent an applicant from claiming priority in the US. The key requirement is that the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate must have generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter of the invention, even if it wasn’t available for the specific invention in question.
Applicants must still provide an affidavit or declaration as required by 37 CFR 1.55(l), stating that they had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter forming the basis of the priority claim.
To learn more:
MPEP 201 - Types of Applications (6)
What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?
Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:
‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’
The significance of copendency includes:
- Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
- Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
- Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.
Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
What happens if I miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application?
If you miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application, you generally lose the ability to claim that earlier filing date. The MPEP 201.04 states:
“If a provisional application is not filed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.53(c), the provisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.”
Consequences of missing the deadline include:
- Loss of the earlier filing date
- Potential issues with prior art that emerged during the 12-month period
- Possible loss of patent rights in some jurisdictions
In some cases, you may be able to file a petition for an unintentional delay under 37 CFR 1.78(c), but this is not guaranteed and may involve additional fees. It’s crucial to monitor deadlines carefully to avoid these issues.
For more information on filing deadline, visit: filing deadline.
For more information on nonprovisional application, visit: nonprovisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
The filing date of a continuation application can significantly affect its patent term. While the continuation application gets the benefit of the earlier filing date for prior art purposes, its actual filing date is used to calculate the patent term. According to MPEP 201.07:
The filing date of a continuation application is the filing date of the parent application.
However, this refers to the priority date for prior art purposes. The actual patent term is calculated from the filing date of the continuation application itself. Here’s how it works:
- The patent term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application to which priority is claimed.
- For a continuation application, this means 20 years from the filing date of the parent non-provisional application.
- Each continuation in a chain reduces the effective patent term.
It’s crucial to consider this when deciding whether to file a continuation or a new application, as it can impact the overall protection period for your invention.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on patent term, visit: patent term.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to earlier applications. 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. That is, the CPA includes the request for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the recitation of the application number of the prior application in such request is the ‘specific reference to the earlier filed application’ required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a benefit claim to the prior application and any earlier applications in the chain, without the need for a separate statement in the specification or application data sheet. However, if the prior application claimed benefit of earlier applications, those benefit claims must still be present in the prior application.
For more information on continuation applications, visit: continuation applications.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Can multiple provisional applications be filed for the same invention?
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be filed for the same invention. The MPEP 201.04 does not place restrictions on filing multiple provisionals. In fact, this practice can be beneficial for inventors who are continuously developing their invention.
Each provisional application establishes a potential priority date for the disclosed content. When filing a subsequent nonprovisional application, the applicant can claim the benefit of multiple provisional applications, potentially securing multiple priority dates for different aspects of the invention.
However, it’s important to note that each provisional application must still meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the disclosed subject matter to be eligible for the priority date.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be combined into a single non-provisional application. This is particularly useful when an inventor has made improvements or additions to their invention over time. The MPEP 201.04 states:
A nonprovisional application that was filed within 12 months of an earlier provisional application may claim the benefit of that provisional application.
While this quote doesn’t explicitly mention multiple provisionals, the USPTO allows claiming benefit from multiple provisional applications in a single non-provisional application, provided each provisional is properly referenced and the non-provisional is filed within 12 months of the earliest provisional application.
For more information on Non-provisional application, visit: Non-provisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
MPEP 213-Right of Priority of Foreign Application (1)
The Paris Convention is an international treaty that establishes priority rights for patent applications. According to MPEP 213, “The right of priority is defined in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)” and is based on this convention. It allows inventors who file a patent application in one member country to claim priority for up to 12 months when filing in other member countries.
Key points of the Paris Convention include:
- Establishing a 12-month priority period for patents
- Allowing applicants to claim priority based on earlier filings in member countries
- Ensuring equal treatment of foreign and domestic applicants in member countries
Patent Law (13)
To claim priority based on an inventor’s certificate, applicants must meet specific requirements outlined in 37 CFR 1.55(l):
To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor’s certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration.
The affidavit or declaration must state that:
- The applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country
- This option existed for the particular subject matter of the invention
It’s important to note that the affidavit is only required to ascertain the general existence of this option in the foreign country, not to probe into the eligibility of the particular applicant.
To learn more:
What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?
Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:
‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’
The significance of copendency includes:
- Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
- Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
- Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.
Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
The affidavit required for claiming priority based on an inventor’s certificate serves a specific purpose, as outlined in MPEP 213.05:
The affidavit or declaration specified under 37 CFR 1.55(l) is only required for the purpose of ascertaining whether, in the country where the application for an inventor’s certificate originated, this option generally existed for applicants with respect to the particular subject matter of the invention involved.
The affidavit is not intended to investigate the specific applicant’s eligibility to exercise the option in their particular case. Rather, it’s meant to confirm that in the country where the inventor’s certificate was filed, applicants generally had the right to choose between applying for a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter in question.
This requirement ensures compliance with the treaty and statute governing priority rights, while recognizing that some countries may have restrictions based on factors such as employment or nationality.
To learn more:
The Paris Convention is an international treaty that establishes priority rights for patent applications. According to MPEP 213, “The right of priority is defined in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)” and is based on this convention. It allows inventors who file a patent application in one member country to claim priority for up to 12 months when filing in other member countries.
Key points of the Paris Convention include:
- Establishing a 12-month priority period for patents
- Allowing applicants to claim priority based on earlier filings in member countries
- Ensuring equal treatment of foreign and domestic applicants in member countries
An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):
Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…
This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.
To learn more:
What happens if I miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application?
If you miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application, you generally lose the ability to claim that earlier filing date. The MPEP 201.04 states:
“If a provisional application is not filed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.53(c), the provisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.”
Consequences of missing the deadline include:
- Loss of the earlier filing date
- Potential issues with prior art that emerged during the 12-month period
- Possible loss of patent rights in some jurisdictions
In some cases, you may be able to file a petition for an unintentional delay under 37 CFR 1.78(c), but this is not guaranteed and may involve additional fees. It’s crucial to monitor deadlines carefully to avoid these issues.
For more information on filing deadline, visit: filing deadline.
For more information on nonprovisional application, visit: nonprovisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:
It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.
This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.
To learn more:
The filing date of a continuation application can significantly affect its patent term. While the continuation application gets the benefit of the earlier filing date for prior art purposes, its actual filing date is used to calculate the patent term. According to MPEP 201.07:
The filing date of a continuation application is the filing date of the parent application.
However, this refers to the priority date for prior art purposes. The actual patent term is calculated from the filing date of the continuation application itself. Here’s how it works:
- The patent term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application to which priority is claimed.
- For a continuation application, this means 20 years from the filing date of the parent non-provisional application.
- Each continuation in a chain reduces the effective patent term.
It’s crucial to consider this when deciding whether to file a continuation or a new application, as it can impact the overall protection period for your invention.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on patent term, visit: patent term.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to earlier applications. 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. That is, the CPA includes the request for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the recitation of the application number of the prior application in such request is the ‘specific reference to the earlier filed application’ required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a benefit claim to the prior application and any earlier applications in the chain, without the need for a separate statement in the specification or application data sheet. However, if the prior application claimed benefit of earlier applications, those benefit claims must still be present in the prior application.
For more information on continuation applications, visit: continuation applications.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Can multiple provisional applications be filed for the same invention?
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be filed for the same invention. The MPEP 201.04 does not place restrictions on filing multiple provisionals. In fact, this practice can be beneficial for inventors who are continuously developing their invention.
Each provisional application establishes a potential priority date for the disclosed content. When filing a subsequent nonprovisional application, the applicant can claim the benefit of multiple provisional applications, potentially securing multiple priority dates for different aspects of the invention.
However, it’s important to note that each provisional application must still meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the disclosed subject matter to be eligible for the priority date.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be combined into a single non-provisional application. This is particularly useful when an inventor has made improvements or additions to their invention over time. The MPEP 201.04 states:
A nonprovisional application that was filed within 12 months of an earlier provisional application may claim the benefit of that provisional application.
While this quote doesn’t explicitly mention multiple provisionals, the USPTO allows claiming benefit from multiple provisional applications in a single non-provisional application, provided each provisional is properly referenced and the non-provisional is filed within 12 months of the earliest provisional application.
For more information on Non-provisional application, visit: Non-provisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
Yes, a continuation application can claim priority to multiple parent applications under certain conditions. According to MPEP 201.07:
‘A continuation application may be filed as a continuation of an earlier application of the same applicant… The continuation application may be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.’
This means that:
- The continuation must have at least one common inventor with the parent application(s).
- The continuation must be filed while at least one of the parent applications is still pending.
- The continuation cannot introduce new matter beyond what was disclosed in the parent application(s).
When claiming priority to multiple parents, the continuation essentially combines the disclosures of the parent applications, as long as they form a continuous chain of copending applications.
To learn more:
To learn more:
Yes, there can be subject matter restrictions when claiming priority based on inventor’s certificates. The MPEP 213.05 states:
Certain countries which grant both patents and inventor’s certificates issue only inventor’s certificates on certain subject matter, generally pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and cosmetics.
This means that for certain types of inventions, some countries may only offer inventor’s certificates and not patents. However, this doesn’t necessarily prevent an applicant from claiming priority in the US. The key requirement is that the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate must have generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter of the invention, even if it wasn’t available for the specific invention in question.
Applicants must still provide an affidavit or declaration as required by 37 CFR 1.55(l), stating that they had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter forming the basis of the priority claim.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (13)
To claim priority based on an inventor’s certificate, applicants must meet specific requirements outlined in 37 CFR 1.55(l):
To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor’s certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration.
The affidavit or declaration must state that:
- The applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country
- This option existed for the particular subject matter of the invention
It’s important to note that the affidavit is only required to ascertain the general existence of this option in the foreign country, not to probe into the eligibility of the particular applicant.
To learn more:
What is the significance of copendency in continuation applications?
Copendency is a crucial requirement for continuation applications. It refers to the condition where the continuation application is filed before the prior application is patented, abandoned, or terminated. The MPEP 201.07 states:
‘To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement; and the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application.’
The significance of copendency includes:
- Maintaining Priority: It ensures the continuation application can claim the benefit of the earlier filing date.
- Unbroken Chain: It maintains an unbroken chain of applications, which is essential for establishing a continuous line of priority.
- Preventing Loss of Rights: Filing a continuation before the parent application is concluded prevents the loss of patent rights that could occur if new claims are needed after the parent application is no longer pending.
Failure to maintain copendency can result in the loss of the earlier priority date, potentially affecting the patentability of the invention if intervening prior art exists.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on copendency, visit: copendency.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
The affidavit required for claiming priority based on an inventor’s certificate serves a specific purpose, as outlined in MPEP 213.05:
The affidavit or declaration specified under 37 CFR 1.55(l) is only required for the purpose of ascertaining whether, in the country where the application for an inventor’s certificate originated, this option generally existed for applicants with respect to the particular subject matter of the invention involved.
The affidavit is not intended to investigate the specific applicant’s eligibility to exercise the option in their particular case. Rather, it’s meant to confirm that in the country where the inventor’s certificate was filed, applicants generally had the right to choose between applying for a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter in question.
This requirement ensures compliance with the treaty and statute governing priority rights, while recognizing that some countries may have restrictions based on factors such as employment or nationality.
To learn more:
The Paris Convention is an international treaty that establishes priority rights for patent applications. According to MPEP 213, “The right of priority is defined in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)” and is based on this convention. It allows inventors who file a patent application in one member country to claim priority for up to 12 months when filing in other member countries.
Key points of the Paris Convention include:
- Establishing a 12-month priority period for patents
- Allowing applicants to claim priority based on earlier filings in member countries
- Ensuring equal treatment of foreign and domestic applicants in member countries
An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):
Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…
This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.
To learn more:
What happens if I miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application?
If you miss the 12-month deadline for filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application, you generally lose the ability to claim that earlier filing date. The MPEP 201.04 states:
“If a provisional application is not filed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.53(c), the provisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application.”
Consequences of missing the deadline include:
- Loss of the earlier filing date
- Potential issues with prior art that emerged during the 12-month period
- Possible loss of patent rights in some jurisdictions
In some cases, you may be able to file a petition for an unintentional delay under 37 CFR 1.78(c), but this is not guaranteed and may involve additional fees. It’s crucial to monitor deadlines carefully to avoid these issues.
For more information on filing deadline, visit: filing deadline.
For more information on nonprovisional application, visit: nonprovisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:
It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.
This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.
To learn more:
The filing date of a continuation application can significantly affect its patent term. While the continuation application gets the benefit of the earlier filing date for prior art purposes, its actual filing date is used to calculate the patent term. According to MPEP 201.07:
The filing date of a continuation application is the filing date of the parent application.
However, this refers to the priority date for prior art purposes. The actual patent term is calculated from the filing date of the continuation application itself. Here’s how it works:
- The patent term is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application to which priority is claimed.
- For a continuation application, this means 20 years from the filing date of the parent non-provisional application.
- Each continuation in a chain reduces the effective patent term.
It’s crucial to consider this when deciding whether to file a continuation or a new application, as it can impact the overall protection period for your invention.
For more information on continuation application, visit: continuation application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on patent term, visit: patent term.
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) automatically maintains the benefit claim to earlier applications. 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. That is, the CPA includes the request for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the recitation of the application number of the prior application in such request is the ‘specific reference to the earlier filed application’ required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
This means that filing a CPA automatically establishes a benefit claim to the prior application and any earlier applications in the chain, without the need for a separate statement in the specification or application data sheet. However, if the prior application claimed benefit of earlier applications, those benefit claims must still be present in the prior application.
For more information on continuation applications, visit: continuation applications.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Can multiple provisional applications be filed for the same invention?
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be filed for the same invention. The MPEP 201.04 does not place restrictions on filing multiple provisionals. In fact, this practice can be beneficial for inventors who are continuously developing their invention.
Each provisional application establishes a potential priority date for the disclosed content. When filing a subsequent nonprovisional application, the applicant can claim the benefit of multiple provisional applications, potentially securing multiple priority dates for different aspects of the invention.
However, it’s important to note that each provisional application must still meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the disclosed subject matter to be eligible for the priority date.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
Yes, multiple provisional applications can be combined into a single non-provisional application. This is particularly useful when an inventor has made improvements or additions to their invention over time. The MPEP 201.04 states:
A nonprovisional application that was filed within 12 months of an earlier provisional application may claim the benefit of that provisional application.
While this quote doesn’t explicitly mention multiple provisionals, the USPTO allows claiming benefit from multiple provisional applications in a single non-provisional application, provided each provisional is properly referenced and the non-provisional is filed within 12 months of the earliest provisional application.
For more information on Non-provisional application, visit: Non-provisional application.
For more information on patent priority, visit: patent priority.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.
Yes, a continuation application can claim priority to multiple parent applications under certain conditions. According to MPEP 201.07:
‘A continuation application may be filed as a continuation of an earlier application of the same applicant… The continuation application may be filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the prior application.’
This means that:
- The continuation must have at least one common inventor with the parent application(s).
- The continuation must be filed while at least one of the parent applications is still pending.
- The continuation cannot introduce new matter beyond what was disclosed in the parent application(s).
When claiming priority to multiple parents, the continuation essentially combines the disclosures of the parent applications, as long as they form a continuous chain of copending applications.
To learn more:
To learn more:
Yes, there can be subject matter restrictions when claiming priority based on inventor’s certificates. The MPEP 213.05 states:
Certain countries which grant both patents and inventor’s certificates issue only inventor’s certificates on certain subject matter, generally pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and cosmetics.
This means that for certain types of inventions, some countries may only offer inventor’s certificates and not patents. However, this doesn’t necessarily prevent an applicant from claiming priority in the US. The key requirement is that the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate must have generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter of the invention, even if it wasn’t available for the specific invention in question.
Applicants must still provide an affidavit or declaration as required by 37 CFR 1.55(l), stating that they had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate for the subject matter forming the basis of the priority claim.
To learn more: