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.
Patent examiners use specific criteria to determine if an application may qualify as a continuation-in-part (CIP). According to MPEP ¶ 2.06, an examiner should consider the following:
- The application repeats a substantial portion of a prior application.
- The application adds disclosure not presented in the prior application.
- The application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application.
The MPEP states: Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application.
However, examiners are advised to use this determination cautiously: This form paragraph should only be used if it appears that the application may qualify as a continuation-in-part, but no benefit claim has been properly established.