Patent Law FAQ

An international design application designating the United States can claim priority based on several types of prior applications. According to MPEP 213.07:

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States.

The types of prior applications that can be used for claiming priority include:

• A prior foreign application
• An international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States
• A prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States

These priority claims must comply with the conditions and requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172, as well as the Hague Agreement and its Regulations.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

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

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

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

The requirement for specific reference to prior applications has undergone changes due to recent legislation:

1. For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet.
2. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet (ADS).

As stated in the MPEP: Thus for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet; for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet or in the first sentence(s) of the specification. (MPEP 210)

This change was implemented as part of the inventor’s oath or declaration provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which became effective on September 16, 2012. The Office revised 37 CFR 1.78 to reflect these changes.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

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

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03: Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

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

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

To rely on an affidavit or declaration from a prior application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To rely on a prior affidavit or declaration, an applicant should:

• Make remarks of record in the new application, referencing the prior affidavit or declaration
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration from the prior application in the new application

This ensures that the examiner is aware of the prior evidence and can consider it in the context of the new application.

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

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

To ensure that affidavits or declarations from a prior application are considered in a new application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To ensure consideration, the applicant should:

• Explicitly reference the prior affidavit or declaration in the new application
• Provide a copy of the original affidavit or declaration
• Explain the relevance of the prior affidavit to the current application

This process helps the examiner understand the context and importance of the previously submitted evidence in relation to the new application.

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

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

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.”

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

This ensures that the examiner can consider the previously submitted evidence in the context of the new application.

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

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

An examiner should check the following on the bib-data sheet regarding prior applications:

1. Accuracy of prior application data, including provisional application data
2. Whether the application is copending with prior nonprovisional applications for which benefit is claimed
3. Correct application numbers of provisional applications for which benefit is claimed
4. Proper listing of foreign applications qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)

MPEP 202 instructs: “Where the data is correct, the examiner should initial the bib-data sheet in the provided space. Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate.”

The front page of a printed patent identifies all prior applications for which benefits are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in continuation-in-part, continuation, divisional, and reissue applications.

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

No, the inclusion of prior application information in the patent does not necessarily indicate that the claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.

See MPEP 2136.03 and MPEP 2154.01(b) for additional information.

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03: Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

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

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

To rely on an affidavit or declaration from a prior application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To rely on a prior affidavit or declaration, an applicant should:

• Make remarks of record in the new application, referencing the prior affidavit or declaration
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration from the prior application in the new application

This ensures that the examiner is aware of the prior evidence and can consider it in the context of the new application.

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

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

To ensure that affidavits or declarations from a prior application are considered in a new application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To ensure consideration, the applicant should:

• Explicitly reference the prior affidavit or declaration in the new application
• Provide a copy of the original affidavit or declaration
• Explain the relevance of the prior affidavit to the current application

This process helps the examiner understand the context and importance of the previously submitted evidence in relation to the new application.

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

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

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.”

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

This ensures that the examiner can consider the previously submitted evidence in the context of the new application.

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

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

An examiner should check the following on the bib-data sheet regarding prior applications:

1. Accuracy of prior application data, including provisional application data
2. Whether the application is copending with prior nonprovisional applications for which benefit is claimed
3. Correct application numbers of provisional applications for which benefit is claimed
4. Proper listing of foreign applications qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)

MPEP 202 instructs: “Where the data is correct, the examiner should initial the bib-data sheet in the provided space. Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate.”

The front page of a printed patent identifies all prior applications for which benefits are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in continuation-in-part, continuation, divisional, and reissue applications.

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

No, the inclusion of prior application information in the patent does not necessarily indicate that the claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.

See MPEP 2136.03 and MPEP 2154.01(b) for additional information.

An international design application designating the United States can claim priority based on several types of prior applications. According to MPEP 213.07:

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States.

The types of prior applications that can be used for claiming priority include:

• A prior foreign application
• An international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States
• A prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States

These priority claims must comply with the conditions and requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172, as well as the Hague Agreement and its Regulations.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

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

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

An international design application designating the United States can claim priority based on several types of prior applications. According to MPEP 213.07:

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States.

The types of prior applications that can be used for claiming priority include:

• A prior foreign application
• An international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States
• A prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States

These priority claims must comply with the conditions and requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172, as well as the Hague Agreement and its Regulations.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

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

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

An examiner should check the following on the bib-data sheet regarding prior applications:

1. Accuracy of prior application data, including provisional application data
2. Whether the application is copending with prior nonprovisional applications for which benefit is claimed
3. Correct application numbers of provisional applications for which benefit is claimed
4. Proper listing of foreign applications qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)

MPEP 202 instructs: “Where the data is correct, the examiner should initial the bib-data sheet in the provided space. Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate.”

The front page of a printed patent identifies all prior applications for which benefits are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in continuation-in-part, continuation, divisional, and reissue applications.

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

The requirement for specific reference to prior applications has undergone changes due to recent legislation:

1. For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet.
2. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet (ADS).

As stated in the MPEP: Thus for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet; for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet or in the first sentence(s) of the specification. (MPEP 210)

This change was implemented as part of the inventor’s oath or declaration provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which became effective on September 16, 2012. The Office revised 37 CFR 1.78 to reflect these changes.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

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

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03: Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

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

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

To rely on an affidavit or declaration from a prior application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To rely on a prior affidavit or declaration, an applicant should:

• Make remarks of record in the new application, referencing the prior affidavit or declaration
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration from the prior application in the new application

This ensures that the examiner is aware of the prior evidence and can consider it in the context of the new application.

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

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

To ensure that affidavits or declarations from a prior application are considered in a new application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To ensure consideration, the applicant should:

• Explicitly reference the prior affidavit or declaration in the new application
• Provide a copy of the original affidavit or declaration
• Explain the relevance of the prior affidavit to the current application

This process helps the examiner understand the context and importance of the previously submitted evidence in relation to the new application.

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

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

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.”

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

This ensures that the examiner can consider the previously submitted evidence in the context of the new application.

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

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

No, the inclusion of prior application information in the patent does not necessarily indicate that the claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.

See MPEP 2136.03 and MPEP 2154.01(b) for additional information.

An international design application designating the United States can claim priority based on several types of prior applications. According to MPEP 213.07:

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States.

The types of prior applications that can be used for claiming priority include:

• A prior foreign application
• An international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States
• A prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States

These priority claims must comply with the conditions and requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172, as well as the Hague Agreement and its Regulations.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

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

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

An examiner should check the following on the bib-data sheet regarding prior applications:

1. Accuracy of prior application data, including provisional application data
2. Whether the application is copending with prior nonprovisional applications for which benefit is claimed
3. Correct application numbers of provisional applications for which benefit is claimed
4. Proper listing of foreign applications qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)

MPEP 202 instructs: “Where the data is correct, the examiner should initial the bib-data sheet in the provided space. Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate.”

The front page of a printed patent identifies all prior applications for which benefits are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in continuation-in-part, continuation, divisional, and reissue applications.

The front page of a patent issuing from a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) contains specific information about prior applications.

As stated in the MPEP: The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under37 CFR 1.53(d)will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application. (MPEP 202)

This means that for a CPA:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent non-CPA application are shown
• The CPA’s own filing date is not displayed
• All prior applications claimed as benefit in the most recent non-CPA application are listed

This information helps establish the continuity and priority of the patent application.

For more information on benefit claims, visit: benefit claims.

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

For more information on CPA, visit: CPA.

For more information on patent front page, visit: patent front page.

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

The requirement for specific reference to prior applications has undergone changes due to recent legislation:

1. For applications filed before September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet.
2. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet (ADS).

As stated in the MPEP: Thus for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in the application data sheet; for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet or in the first sentence(s) of the specification. (MPEP 210)

This change was implemented as part of the inventor’s oath or declaration provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which became effective on September 16, 2012. The Office revised 37 CFR 1.78 to reflect these changes.

For more information on ADS, visit: ADS.

For more information on application data sheet, visit: application data sheet.

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

For more information on specific reference, visit: specific reference.

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03: Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

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

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

To rely on an affidavit or declaration from a prior application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To rely on a prior affidavit or declaration, an applicant should:

• Make remarks of record in the new application, referencing the prior affidavit or declaration
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration from the prior application in the new application

This ensures that the examiner is aware of the prior evidence and can consider it in the context of the new application.

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

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

To ensure that affidavits or declarations from a prior application are considered in a new application, an applicant must take specific steps. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.”

To ensure consideration, the applicant should:

• Explicitly reference the prior affidavit or declaration in the new application
• Provide a copy of the original affidavit or declaration
• Explain the relevance of the prior affidavit to the current application

This process helps the examiner understand the context and importance of the previously submitted evidence in relation to the new application.

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

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

For continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the front page of a printed patent will include:

• The application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application
• All prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application

Notably, the filing date of the CPA itself is not included. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.” (MPEP 202)

Affidavits or declarations filed in a prior application do not automatically become part of a new application. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.03:

“Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application.”

To rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant must:

• Make remarks of record in the new application
• Include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application

This ensures that the examiner can consider the previously submitted evidence in the context of the new application.

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

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

No, the inclusion of prior application information in the patent does not necessarily indicate that the claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.

See MPEP 2136.03 and MPEP 2154.01(b) for additional information.