How does the USPTO notify applicants about non-compliant CPA requests?
When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for a design patent is found to be non-compliant, the USPTO notifies the applicant using a specific form paragraph. This notification informs the applicant about the issue and provides necessary details. According to the MPEP, the examiner uses the following format: ‘Receipt is acknowledged of the request for…
Read MoreHow can an inventor be deleted from a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
An inventor can be deleted from a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents by submitting a statement requesting the deletion at the time of filing the CPA. The MPEP states: “Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between deleting an inventor at CPA filing vs. after filing?
The process for deleting an inventor from a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) differs depending on when the request is made: At CPA Filing: You can submit a statement requesting the deletion of an inventor when filing the CPA. This is a straightforward process that doesn’t require additional paperwork. After CPA Filing: If you need to…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of MPEP ¶ 2.32 regarding inventor deletion in CPAs?
MPEP ¶ 2.32 provides guidance for patent examiners on how to acknowledge and process requests to delete a named inventor in Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) for design patents. The paragraph serves several purposes: It offers a standardized response for examiners to use when acknowledging the receipt of a request to delete an inventor. It confirms…
Read MoreHow does inventorship work in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
In a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), the inventorship is typically the same as in the prior application. However, if a new inventor needs to be added, a specific process must be followed. According to MPEP ¶ 2.33: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48.…
Read MoreWhat is a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in design patent applications?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents. It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a previously filed design application by filing a request for continued examination. CPAs are governed by 37 CFR 1.53(d) and are only available for design applications. For more information on continued prosecution application,…
Read MoreWhat happens if a new inventor is identified in a CPA without proper documentation?
If a new inventor is identified in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) without proper documentation, it can lead to issues with the application. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states: It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under…
Read MoreHow do I correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
To correctly add a new inventor to a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), you must follow the procedures outlined in 37 CFR 1.48. The MPEP ¶ 2.33 states: Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. To add a new inventor: File a request under 37…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the filing date in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
The filing date of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is significant for several reasons. In the context of inventorship, the MPEP ¶ 2.33 mentions: It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as…
Read MoreCan 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