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.
Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) have several key differences from regular continuation applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b):
- CPAs are only available for design applications, not utility or plant applications
- CPAs use the same application number as the prior application
- CPAs do not require a new specification or drawings to be filed
- The filing requirements for a CPA are minimal compared to a regular continuation
- CPAs are typically processed faster than regular continuations
- Filing a CPA automatically abandons the prior application
MPEP 201.06(d) states: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b).
For more information on design patents, visit: design patents.
For more information on patent application types, visit: patent application types.
For more information on USPTO procedures, visit: USPTO procedures.