How does CPA practice differ for utility and plant applications?
Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) practice differs significantly for utility and plant applications compared to design applications. The key difference is: CPA practice is not available for utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. As stated in the MPEP 201.06(d): “Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility…
Read MoreHow 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 MoreWhat are the requirements for claiming benefit of a prior-filed application in a continuation or continuation-in-part application?
To claim the benefit of a prior-filed application in a continuation or continuation-in-part application, several requirements must be met: 1. The application must be filed before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the prior application. 2. The application must contain or be amended to contain a specific reference to the prior application. For…
Read MoreCan the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part application differ from the parent application?
Yes, the inventorship in a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application can differ from the parent application, but there are specific requirements: 1. For continuation applications: The inventorship must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application. 2. For CIP applications: The inventorship can change more significantly due to the addition of new matter.…
Read MoreWhat is the effect of filing a continuation or continuation-in-part application on the parent application?
Filing a continuation or continuation-in-part (CIP) application does not automatically affect the status of the parent application. The parent application continues to be examined or remains patented (if already issued) independently of the child application. Key points to note: 1. The parent application remains pending unless expressly abandoned, allowed to go abandoned, or issued as…
Read MoreCan a design patent application be filed as a continuation or continuation-in-part?
Yes, design patent applications can be filed as continuations or continuations-in-part (CIPs), but with some specific considerations: 1. Continuations: A design application can be a continuation of a prior design application. 2. Continuations-in-part: A design application can be a CIP of a prior design application if it adds new matter. 3. Relationship to Utility Applications:…
Read MoreHow does assignment work for division and continuation applications?
For division and continuation applications, a prior assignment recorded against the original application is automatically applied to the new application. This is because the assignment recorded against the original application gives the assignee rights to the subject matter common to both applications. However, it’s important to note that while the assignment is effective for the…
Read MoreWhat is the difference in assignment between division/continuation and substitute/CIP applications?
The key difference in assignment between division/continuation applications and substitute/continuation-in-part (CIP) applications lies in how prior assignments are applied: Division/Continuation Applications: Prior assignments recorded against the original application automatically apply to these applications. As stated in MPEP 306: In the case of a division or continuation application, a prior assignment recorded against the original application…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle assignment records for division and continuation applications?
While a prior assignment recorded against an original application is automatically effective for division and continuation applications, the USPTO does not automatically update its assignment records for these new applications. As stated in MPEP 306: Although the assignment recorded against an original application is applied to the division or continuation application, the Office’s assignment records…
Read MoreWhat is the ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case and how does it apply to foreign priority claims?
The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include: It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance. The…
Read More