This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
No, a provisional application cannot be considered a continuation-in-part (CIP). The MPEP explicitly states: An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a ‘continuation-in-part’ of the provisional application.
(MPEP ¶ 2.06)
This distinction is important because:
- Provisional applications are not examined and do not mature into patents.
- The term ‘continuation-in-part’ is reserved for non-provisional applications that build upon prior non-provisional applications.
- The relationship between a non-provisional application and a provisional application is described as ‘claiming the benefit of’ the provisional, not as a continuation or CIP.
For more information on 35 U.S.C. 119(e), visit: 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.
For more information on provisional application, visit: provisional application.