What is the difference between a divisional and a continuation application?

What is the difference between a divisional and a continuation application? While both divisional and continuation applications are types of continuing applications, they serve different purposes: Divisional Application: Filed to pursue claims to an invention that was not elected in a previous application due to a restriction requirement. Continuation Application: Filed to pursue additional claims…

Read More

What is the difference between applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.53(d) regarding affidavits?

The treatment of affidavits and declarations differs between applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and those filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP ¶ 2.03: “Do not use this form paragraph in applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) since affidavits and/or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132 filed…

Read More

What types of affidavits or declarations are commonly filed in patent applications?

Common types of affidavits or declarations filed in patent applications include those submitted under specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. As mentioned in MPEP ¶ 2.03, these include: 37 CFR 1.130: Declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure under the AIA 37 CFR 1.131: Affidavits of prior invention to overcome cited patents or…

Read More

How does the filing date of a CPA get determined?

The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is determined by the date on which a proper request for a CPA is filed. Specifically, the MPEP states: The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed.…

Read More

What is the significance of 37 CFR 1.53(d) applications regarding affidavits and declarations?

Applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) have a unique treatment of affidavits and declarations. According to MPEP ¶ 2.03: “Do not use this form paragraph in applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) since affidavits and/or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132 filed during the prosecution of the parent nonprovisional…

Read More

What happens to the inventorship in a CPA?

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) generally carries over from the prior application, unless specific steps are taken to change it. The MPEP states: The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing…

Read More

How does a CPA affect priority claims and terminal disclaimers?

Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) automatically carry over certain aspects from the parent application. Specifically: Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) made in the parent application automatically carry over to a CPA. A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to a CPA. The MPEP explains: Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) made in…

Read More

How does the inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) relate to the parent application?

The inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is directly related to the parent application. As stated in MPEP 201.06(d): ‘The inventorship in a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is the same as in the prior application.’ This means that when you file a CPA, you are essentially continuing the same application with the…

Read More