Patent Law FAQ

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 utility patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”. Utility patent applications are sometimes referred to as “utility” patent applications when being contrasted with plant or design patent applications.

The MPEP states: “The first type of patent application is sometimes referred to as a ‘utility’ patent application when being contrasted with a plant or design patent application.”

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

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 utility patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”. Utility patent applications are sometimes referred to as “utility” patent applications when being contrasted with plant or design patent applications.

The MPEP states: “The first type of patent application is sometimes referred to as a ‘utility’ patent application when being contrasted with a plant or design patent application.”

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

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.

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 utility patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”. Utility patent applications are sometimes referred to as “utility” patent applications when being contrasted with plant or design patent applications.

The MPEP states: “The first type of patent application is sometimes referred to as a ‘utility’ patent application when being contrasted with a plant or design patent application.”

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

For utility and design patent applications, as well as related proceedings, color drawings and photographs are handled as follows, according to MPEP 608.02(c):

Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

To break this down:

• Color drawings and photographs are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository)
• A black and white copy is stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper)
• A SCORE placeholder sheet is included in the IFW

This applies to various types of applications and proceedings, including nonprovisional utility and design patent applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• color photographs
• utility patents
• design patents
• SCORE
• IFW

Black and white line drawings are handled differently depending on the type of application:

• For provisional applications, nonprovisional utility patent applications, international applications (PCT), national stage applications, and reexamination proceedings for utility patents, they are converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper).
• For design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents, they are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository), with a black and white copy stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

As stated in the MPEP: Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.

To learn more:

• patent drawings
• IFW
• SCORE
• TIFF images
• utility patents
• design patents

Can I use color drawings in my patent application?

Yes, you can use color drawings in your patent application, but they require special approval. According to MPEP 608.02:

‘Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii) and the specification must contain the reference required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii).’

For utility patent applications, color drawings are not ordinarily permitted. However, the USPTO will accept color drawings if:

• A petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is filed
• The fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) is paid
• Three sets of color drawings or color photographs are submitted

The petition must explain why color drawings are necessary to accurately depict the invention.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• patent application
• design patents
• 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

Photographs are generally not permitted in utility and design patent applications, but exceptions exist. According to MPEP 608.01(f):

Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.

Examples of acceptable photographs include:

• Electrophoresis gels
• Blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern)
• Cell cultures
• Histological tissue cross sections
• In vivo imaging
• Crystalline structures
• Ornamental effects (in design patent applications)

The photographs must be of sufficient quality to ensure all details are reproducible in the printed patent. If the subject matter can be illustrated by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing instead of a photograph.

To learn more:

• photographs
• patent applications
• utility patents
• design 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 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 utility patent application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 101 for “a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”. Utility patent applications are sometimes referred to as “utility” patent applications when being contrasted with plant or design patent applications.

The MPEP states: “The first type of patent application is sometimes referred to as a ‘utility’ patent application when being contrasted with a plant or design patent application.”

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

For utility and design patent applications, as well as related proceedings, color drawings and photographs are handled as follows, according to MPEP 608.02(c):

Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

To break this down:

• Color drawings and photographs are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository)
• A black and white copy is stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper)
• A SCORE placeholder sheet is included in the IFW

This applies to various types of applications and proceedings, including nonprovisional utility and design patent applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• color photographs
• utility patents
• design patents
• SCORE
• IFW

Black and white line drawings are handled differently depending on the type of application:

• For provisional applications, nonprovisional utility patent applications, international applications (PCT), national stage applications, and reexamination proceedings for utility patents, they are converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW (Image File Wrapper).
• For design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents, they are stored in SCORE (Supplemental Content Repository), with a black and white copy stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.

As stated in the MPEP: Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.

To learn more:

• patent drawings
• IFW
• SCORE
• TIFF images
• utility patents
• design patents

Can I use color drawings in my patent application?

Yes, you can use color drawings in your patent application, but they require special approval. According to MPEP 608.02:

‘Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii) and the specification must contain the reference required by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii).’

For utility patent applications, color drawings are not ordinarily permitted. However, the USPTO will accept color drawings if:

• A petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is filed
• The fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) is paid
• Three sets of color drawings or color photographs are submitted

The petition must explain why color drawings are necessary to accurately depict the invention.

To learn more:

• color drawings
• patent application
• design patents
• 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

Photographs are generally not permitted in utility and design patent applications, but exceptions exist. According to MPEP 608.01(f):

Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.

Examples of acceptable photographs include:

• Electrophoresis gels
• Blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern)
• Cell cultures
• Histological tissue cross sections
• In vivo imaging
• Crystalline structures
• Ornamental effects (in design patent applications)

The photographs must be of sufficient quality to ensure all details are reproducible in the printed patent. If the subject matter can be illustrated by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing instead of a photograph.

To learn more:

• photographs
• patent applications
• utility patents
• design 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.