What 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 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 a continuation application be filed after the parent application is granted or abandoned?
Yes, a continuation application can be filed after the parent application is granted or abandoned, but there are timing restrictions. The MPEP states: At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for filing a CPA in a design application?
To file a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a design application, the following requirements must be met: The application must be a design application. The prior application must be a nonprovisional application. The application must be filed before the earliest of: Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under §…
Read MoreHow 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 MoreCan a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) be filed in a provisional application?
Can a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) be filed in a provisional application? No, a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) cannot be filed in a provisional application. According to MPEP 201.06(d): “A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application that is complete as defined by…
Read MoreWhat is a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of patent application specifically for design patents, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows applicants to continue prosecution of a parent design patent application by filing a request for a CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)…
Read MoreHow is a ‘conditional’ request for a CPA treated by the USPTO?
According to MPEP ¶ 2.35, the USPTO treats ‘conditional’ requests for Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) as unconditional requests. The MPEP explicitly states: Any ‘conditional’ request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. This means that even if an applicant submits a CPA request with conditions…
Read MoreWhat happens if a CPA request is improper for a utility or plant application?
If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request is improper for a utility or plant application, the USPTO handles it differently than for design applications. According to MPEP ¶ 2.35: If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use…
Read More