How does an examiner inform an applicant about an unacceptable CPA request?
When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent application is deemed unacceptable, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph to inform the applicant. According to MPEP ¶ 2.31, the examiner note states: “Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in…
Read MoreWhat is a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications?
A Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for Design Applications is a procedure that allows for the correction of inventorship when filing a CPA. This request is specifically used to remove the name(s) of person(s) who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. According…
Read MoreWhen can a Request to Delete a Named Inventor be filed for a CPA?
A Request to Delete a Named Inventor can be filed at two specific times for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA): With the CPA filing: The request can be submitted along with the CPA when it is initially filed. After the CPA filing: If the request is made after the CPA has been filed, it must…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO acknowledge a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a CPA?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) formally acknowledges a Request to Delete a Named Inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) through an official response. This acknowledgment serves as confirmation that the request has been received and processed. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides the standard language used by examiners to acknowledge such requests:…
Read MoreWhat is a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in the context of design applications?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application that allows applicants to continue prosecution of a prior design application. It’s important to note that CPAs are now only available for design applications, not utility applications. While the MPEP ¶ 2.32 doesn’t provide a direct definition of a CPA, it implies its use…
Read MoreWhat are the methods for requesting inventor deletion in a design CPA?
There are two primary methods for requesting the deletion of a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications: Letter to the examiner: You can submit a letter directly to the patent examiner handling your application. Request for corrected filing receipt: You can file a formal request for a corrected filing receipt…
Read MoreHow do I request deletion of a named inventor in a CPA for design applications?
To request deletion of a named inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design applications, you need to file a proper request with the USPTO. According to MPEP § 201, specifically paragraph 2.32: In a continued prosecution application (CPA) for a design application (37 CFR 1.53(d)), a request to delete a named inventor from…
Read MoreWhat happens if I identify a new inventor in a CPA without filing a 37 CFR 1.48 request?
If you identify a new inventor in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) without filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48, the inventorship will not be officially changed. The MPEP clearly states: ‘It is noted that [new inventor] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [filing…
Read MoreWhat is the proper procedure for correcting inventorship in a CPA?
The proper procedure for correcting inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is to file a request under 37 CFR 1.48. This applies whether you’re adding or removing an inventor. The MPEP guidance states: ‘Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.’ This formal request…
Read MoreCan I amend the specification of a CPA to reference the prior application?
No, you cannot amend the specification of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) to reference the prior application. The USPTO explicitly states that such amendments are not necessary and will not be entered. As per MPEP ¶ 2.34: “Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the…
Read More