What is a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) and when can it be filed?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a type of continuation or divisional application that can be filed for design patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53(d). It allows an applicant to continue prosecution of a prior design application. As stated in the MPEP: A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional…
Read MoreWhen is a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) acceptable?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is acceptable when it meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d). According to MPEP § 201, the examiner will use specific language to indicate acceptance: The request filed on [date] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [number] is acceptable…
Read MoreAre Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) available for all types of patent applications?
No, Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are not available for all types of patent applications. They are specifically limited to design patent applications. This is evident from the MPEP guidance, which states: ‘Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR…
Read MoreHow can I delete a named inventor when filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
When filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for a design patent, you can request the deletion of a named inventor by submitting a statement with your CPA filing. The MPEP ¶ 2.32 states: “Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution…
Read MoreWhat should examiners include in the first Office action of a CPA?
In the first Office action of a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA), examiners should include specific information to advise the applicant about the status of their application. The MPEP ¶ 2.35 provides guidance on this matter: Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a ‘conditional’ request…
Read MoreHow can inventorship be corrected in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)?
Inventorship in a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents can be corrected by filing a statement requesting the deletion of a named inventor along with the CPA filing. 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…
Read MoreHow does a CPA (Continued Prosecution Application) differ from other continuing applications?
A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is a unique type of continuing application that has specific limitations. According to MPEP 201.02: A ‘continued prosecution application’ (CPA) is a continuation or divisional application for an invention disclosed in a prior nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d). A CPA can only be filed in a…
Read MoreWhat are the advantages of filing a CPA instead of a regular continuation application?
Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) for design patents has several advantages over filing a regular continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b): Minimal filing requirements – only a request on a separate paper and the filing fee are needed No new oath or declaration is required Faster processing – the CPA uses the file and…
Read MoreHow does an examiner notify an applicant that a CPA has been established?
When a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is established, the examiner notifies the applicant in the first Office action of the CPA. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the examiner uses a specific form paragraph: “The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between a CPA in utility/plant applications and design applications?
There is a significant difference in how Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) are treated for utility/plant applications versus design applications. According to the examiner’s note in 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 this…
Read More