Patent Law FAQ

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.

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.

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are only available for design patent applications. If an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application, the following occurs:

• For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114
• If the requirements for an RCE are not met, the Office will send a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
• For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the improper CPA cannot be treated as an RCE
• The applicant will be notified of the improper CPA

MPEP 201.06(d) states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed. It further notes: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

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

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request is improper for a utility or plant application, the USPTO handles it differently than for design applications. According to 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).

In such cases, the USPTO treats the improper CPA request as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This approach ensures that the application can continue to be prosecuted, albeit under a different procedure. Applicants should be aware of this distinction and the potential implications for their patent prosecution strategy.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is improperly requested for a utility or plant patent application, it is typically treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.30 provides guidance on this situation:

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).

In such cases, the examiner will use a different form paragraph (7.42.15) to notify the applicant that their CPA request has been treated as an RCE. This ensures that the application can continue to be examined under the appropriate procedure for utility or plant patents.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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.

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) cannot be filed for utility or plant applications. The MPEP clearly states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. For utility and plant applications, applicants should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 or a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) instead.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Utility Patents
• Plant Patents
• RCE

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.

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 plant patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 161 for whoever “invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state”.

The MPEP cites 35 U.S.C. 161: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

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.

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”

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 plant patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 161 for whoever “invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state”.

The MPEP cites 35 U.S.C. 161: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are only available for design patent applications. If an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application, the following occurs:

• For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114
• If the requirements for an RCE are not met, the Office will send a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
• For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the improper CPA cannot be treated as an RCE
• The applicant will be notified of the improper CPA

MPEP 201.06(d) states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed. It further notes: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

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

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request is improper for a utility or plant application, the USPTO handles it differently than for design applications. According to 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).

In such cases, the USPTO treats the improper CPA request as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This approach ensures that the application can continue to be prosecuted, albeit under a different procedure. Applicants should be aware of this distinction and the potential implications for their patent prosecution strategy.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is improperly requested for a utility or plant patent application, it is typically treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.30 provides guidance on this situation:

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).

In such cases, the examiner will use a different form paragraph (7.42.15) to notify the applicant that their CPA request has been treated as an RCE. This ensures that the application can continue to be examined under the appropriate procedure for utility or plant patents.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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.

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.

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.

The primary purpose of drawing review in OPAP is to determine whether the drawings in new utility and plant patent applications can be effectively scanned for publication purposes. As stated in MPEP 507:

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) performs an initial review of drawings in new utility and plant patent applications to determine whether the drawings can be effectively scanned for publication purposes.

It’s important to note that design applications are not subject to this review as they are not published.

The primary purpose of drawing review in OPAP is to determine whether the drawings in new utility and plant patent applications can be effectively scanned for publication purposes. As stated in MPEP 507:

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) performs an initial review of drawings in new utility and plant patent applications to determine whether the drawings can be effectively scanned for publication purposes.

It’s important to note that design applications are not subject to this review as they are not published.

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”

The primary purpose of drawing review in OPAP is to determine whether the drawings in new utility and plant patent applications can be effectively scanned for publication purposes. As stated in MPEP 507:

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) performs an initial review of drawings in new utility and plant patent applications to determine whether the drawings can be effectively scanned for publication purposes.

It’s important to note that design applications are not subject to this review as they are not published.

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 plant patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 161 for whoever “invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state”.

The MPEP cites 35 U.S.C. 161: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are only available for design patent applications. If an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application, the following occurs:

• For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114
• If the requirements for an RCE are not met, the Office will send a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
• For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the improper CPA cannot be treated as an RCE
• The applicant will be notified of the improper CPA

MPEP 201.06(d) states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed. It further notes: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

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

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request is improper for a utility or plant application, the USPTO handles it differently than for design applications. According to 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).

In such cases, the USPTO treats the improper CPA request as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This approach ensures that the application can continue to be prosecuted, albeit under a different procedure. Applicants should be aware of this distinction and the potential implications for their patent prosecution strategy.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is improperly requested for a utility or plant patent application, it is typically treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.30 provides guidance on this situation:

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).

In such cases, the examiner will use a different form paragraph (7.42.15) to notify the applicant that their CPA request has been treated as an RCE. This ensures that the application can continue to be examined under the appropriate procedure for utility or plant patents.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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.

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.

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) cannot be filed for utility or plant applications. The MPEP clearly states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. For utility and plant applications, applicants should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 or a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) instead.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Utility Patents
• Plant Patents
• RCE

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.

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”

The primary purpose of drawing review in OPAP is to determine whether the drawings in new utility and plant patent applications can be effectively scanned for publication purposes. As stated in MPEP 507:

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) performs an initial review of drawings in new utility and plant patent applications to determine whether the drawings can be effectively scanned for publication purposes.

It’s important to note that design applications are not subject to this review as they are not published.

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 plant patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 161 for whoever “invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state”.

The MPEP cites 35 U.S.C. 161: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are only available for design patent applications. If an improper CPA is filed for a utility or plant application, the following occurs:

• For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the improper CPA is treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114
• If the requirements for an RCE are not met, the Office will send a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
• For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the improper CPA cannot be treated as an RCE
• The applicant will be notified of the improper CPA

MPEP 201.06(d) states: Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed. It further notes: If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 is treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114.

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

For more information on RCE, visit: RCE.

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

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

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request is improper for a utility or plant application, the USPTO handles it differently than for design applications. According to 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).

In such cases, the USPTO treats the improper CPA request as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This approach ensures that the application can continue to be prosecuted, albeit under a different procedure. Applicants should be aware of this distinction and the potential implications for their patent prosecution strategy.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is improperly requested for a utility or plant patent application, it is typically treated as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The MPEP ¶ 2.30 provides guidance on this situation:

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).

In such cases, the examiner will use a different form paragraph (7.42.15) to notify the applicant that their CPA request has been treated as an RCE. This ensures that the application can continue to be examined under the appropriate procedure for utility or plant patents.

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

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

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.

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.

No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) cannot be filed for utility or plant applications. The MPEP clearly states: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. For utility and plant applications, applicants should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 or a new application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) instead.

To learn more:

• CPA
• Utility Patents
• Plant Patents
• RCE

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.