Can I amend the specification to refer to a CPA as a continuation of a prior application?

No, you cannot amend the specification to refer to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as a continuation of a prior application. The USPTO explicitly denies such amendments. As stated in MPEP ¶ 2.34: The amendment filed [date] requesting that the specification be amended to refer to the present Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as a [continuation/divisional]…

Read More

What is the legal basis for denying amendments to CPA specifications?

The legal basis for denying amendments to Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) specifications that attempt to reference prior applications stems from both federal regulations and patent law. Specifically: 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7): This regulation establishes that a CPA request itself serves as the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120. 35 U.S.C. 120: This statute outlines the…

Read More

How does a CPA differ from a continuation application?

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) and a continuation application are both ways to continue prosecution of a patent application, but they have key differences: CPA: Only available for design applications filed before May 29, 2000, and for plant applications. It continues examination of the same application. Continuation: Available for all types of applications and creates…

Read More

What is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property?

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is an international agreement that establishes key principles for intellectual property protection, including patents. It was first signed in 1883 and has been revised several times since then. The Convention is significant in patent law because it established the right of priority, which allows patent applicants…

Read More

How does 35 U.S.C. 365 affect the right of priority for international applications?

35 U.S.C. 365 addresses the right of priority for international applications in two key aspects: National applications based on international applications International applications based on foreign applications The MPEP states: “35 U.S.C. 365(a) provides that a national application shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior international application of whatever origin,…

Read More

What is the significance of 35 U.S.C. 386 for international design applications?

35 U.S.C. 386 establishes the right of priority for international design applications. It addresses two key scenarios: National applications claiming priority from international design applications International design applications claiming priority from prior foreign applications The MPEP explains: “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and 37 CFR 1.55, a nonprovisional application may make a claim of foreign…

Read More

What is the significance of the Access Code on the Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application?

What is the significance of the Access Code on the Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application? The Access Code on the Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application plays a crucial role in the priority document exchange process. The MPEP states: ‘The Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application must include the Access Code assigned to that…

Read More