What should examiners consider when performing an interference search for applications with different effective filing dates?
Patent examiners must be particularly careful when conducting interference searches for applications that may have claims with different effective filing dates. The MPEP 2304.01(a) provides guidance on this matter: “Examiners are reminded that some applications, such as continuation-in-part applications, may contain claims entitled to different effective filing dates (see MPEP §§ 2133.01 and 2152.01), and…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s responsibility regarding prior art in continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications?
When an application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner has specific responsibilities regarding prior art. According to MPEP 2001.06(b): “If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited…
Read MoreAre applications with different effective filing dates treated differently in interference searches?
Yes, applications with different effective filing dates require special consideration during interference searches. The MPEP 1302.08 states: “Examiners are reminded that some applications, such as continuation-in-part applications, may contain claims entitled to different effective filing dates (see MPEP §§ 2133.01 and 2152.01), and that each effective filing date should be considered when performing the interference…
Read More