211.01 Requirements Related to the Prior-Filed Application [R-07.2022]

I. THE PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION MUST BE ENTITLED TO A FILING DATE

If the prior-filed application is a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), and the basic filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16 must have been paid within the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(iii). If the prior-filed application is an international application designating the United States, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(i). If the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(ii).

If the prior-filed application is a provisional application, the provisional application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) and the basic filing fee of the provisional application must have been paid within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2).

Form paragraph 2.40 may be used to notify applicant that the application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application was not entitled to a filing date and/or did not include the basic filing fee.

If a provisional application is abandoned due to, at least, a failure to pay the basic filing fee, applicant may still claim benefit to the prior-filed application by filing a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 in the provisional application to pay the basic filing fee. If such a petition to revive is grantable, the decision granting the petition should indicate that the basic filing fee is being accepted as having been paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g) for purposes of compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2) in any subsequent nonprovisional application.

A petition under 37 CFR 1.183 in order to claim benefit of such a provisional application is not necessary.

II. SAME INVENTOR OR A COMMON JOINT INVENTOR

The statute requires that applications claiming benefit of the earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 name the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the previously filed application or provisional application. SeeMPEP §§ 201.06, 602.01(c)et seq. and 1412.04 for correction of inventorship. If upon filing of the application and the filing of a relied upon prior-filed application there is an overlap in appropriately named inventorship, an application otherwise properly identified as a continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional application (and meeting all other requirements) can claim benefit of the prior-filed application's filing date pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 121. Note that to be entitled to the benefit of any prior-filed application(s), in addition to naming the inventor or at least one common joint inventor, the invention claimed in the later-filed application must be supported in the manner provided by the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See MPEP § 211.05.

III. TRANSITION APPLICATION STATEMENT

If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional or nonprovisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within a specified time period. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) and MPEP § 210, subsection III. Nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provisions of 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6).

IV. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

See MPEP § 211.01(a) for additional information and requirements specific to claiming the benefit of a provisional application.

See MPEP § 211.01(b) for additional information and requirements specific to claiming the benefit of an earlier-filed nonprovisional application.

211.02 Reference to Prior Application(s) [R-07.2022]

I. APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Both 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 include the requirement that the later-filed application must contain a specific reference to the prior application.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(a)) and/or in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, although the Office prefers the use of an application data sheet. If applicant is claiming the benefit of multiple prior applications, and the reference to the prior applications is in the specification, the reference may be in a continuous string of multiple sentences at the beginning of the specification. The multiple sentences must begin as the first sentence after the title, and any additional sentence(s) including a benefit claim must follow the first sentence and not be separated from the first sentence by any other sentence not making a benefit claim. If the specific reference is only contained in the application data sheet, then the benefit claim information will be included on the front page of any patent or patent application publication, but will not be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification.

For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 for benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application, or the nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP § 201.06 and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide in the specification an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). See also MPEP §§ 217 and MPEP § 608.01(p).

When a benefit claim is submitted after the filing of an application, and the later-filed application as filed did not incorporate the prior-filed application by reference, applicant cannot add an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980). See also 37 CFR 1.57(b).

If an applicant includes a benefit claim elsewhere in the application but not in the manner specified by 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the claim is not present in the proper place but is included in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter) within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, the Office will not require a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the claim if the information concerning the claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt. If, however, a claim is not included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76) and is not recognized by the Office as shown by its absence on the first filing receipt, the Office will require a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee to correct the claim if the correction is sought after expiration of the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78. The Office may not recognize any benefit claim where, for example, there is no indication of the relationship between the nonprovisional applications, or no indication of an intermediate nonprovisional application that is directly claiming the benefit of a provisional application. See subsection II, below. Even if the Office has recognized a benefit claim by entering it into the Office’s database and including it on any of applicant’s filing receipts, the benefit claim is not a proper benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 unless the reference is included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 or, for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, included in an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76 or in the first sentence(s) of the specification, and all other requirements are met.

In view of this requirement for a specific reference in the later-filed application, the right to rely on a prior application may be waived by an applicant if a proper reference to the prior application is not included in the later-filed application. If the examiner is aware of the fact that an application may be entitled to claim the benefit of a prior application or the applicant fails to submit the reference to the prior application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., the reference was submitted in the transmittal letter but not in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 in the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76)), the examiner should merely call attention to this in an Office action by using the wording of form paragraph 2.15.

If the examiner is aware of a prior application, the examiner should note it in an Office action, as indicated above, but should not require the applicant to call attention to the prior application.

For notations to be placed in the file history in the case of continuing applications, see MPEP § 202 and § 1302.09.

II. REFERENCE TO PRIOR NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS

Except for benefit claims to the prior application in a continued prosecution application (CPA), benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) must identify the prior application by application number, by international application number and international filing date, or by international registration number and international filing date under 37 CFR 1.1023, and indicate the relationship between the applications. See 37 CFR 1.78. The relationship between the applications is whether the instant application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior nonprovisional application. For international design applications, the required reference can identify the nonprovisional application number instead of the international registration number and filing date under 37 CFR 1.1023 once the international design application becomes a nonprovisional application. Identifying the prior international design application by the nonprovisional application number is preferable to the Office.

Where the reference to a prior nonprovisional application appears in the specification of an application as permitted for applications filed before September 16, 2012, an example of a proper benefit claim is “this application is a continuation of prior Application No. ---, filed ---.” A benefit claim that merely states that “this application claims the benefit of Application No. ---, filed ---” does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78, since the relationship between the applications is not stated. In addition, a benefit claim that merely states that “this application is a continuing application of Application No. ---, filed ---” does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 since the proper relationship, which includes the type of continuing (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) application, is not stated.

A request for a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications, but not international design applications) is itself the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request. (Note: The CPA is assigned the same application number as the prior application.) In a CPA, a specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and may not be made. Any such reference should be deleted. No amendment in a CPA may delete the specific reference to the prior application assigned the same application number. A specific reference to an application not assigned the same application number, but relied on for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 is required. Cross references to other related applications not assigned the same application as the CPA may be made when appropriate.

When a nonprovisional application (other than a CPA) filed on or after September 16, 2012 is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an earlier U.S. effective filing date, the reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the benefit claim must appear either in the application data sheet, or as a statement in the first sentence(s) of the specification. An example of such a statement is “This is a divisional (or continuation, or continuation-in-part, as appropriate) application of Application No. ---, filed ---.” In the case of a design application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) as a divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part of a CPA, there should be only one reference to the series of applications assigned the same application number, with the filing date cited being that of the original non-continued application. See MPEP § 1504.20 for additional information pertaining to benefit claims in design applications.

Where a nonprovisional application is claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the appropriate relationship must be indicated on an application data sheet for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76) and/or in the first sentence(s) specification. Where the reference to the prior-filed national stage application appears in the specification, a suitable reference would read “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 08/---, which was the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/DE95/---, filed ---.”

Any benefit claim that does not both identify a prior application by its application number and specify a relationship between the applications will not be considered to contain a specific reference to a prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120. Such benefit claim may not be recognized by the Office and may not be included on the filing receipt even if the claim appears in an application data sheet (for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012), or in the application data sheet or the first sentence(s) of the specification (for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012). As a result, publication of the application may not be scheduled on the basis of the prior application’s filing date. If the Office does not recognize a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 because it does not contain the required reference and the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 for submitting the required reference has expired, applicant must submit a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) in order for the Office to accept the unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 because the application will not have been scheduled for publication on the basis of the prior application’s filing date.

To specify the relationship between the applications, applicant must specify whether the application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior application. Note that the terms are exclusive. An application cannot be, for example, both a continuation and a divisional or a continuation and a continuation-in-part of the same application. Moreover, if the benefit of more than one nonprovisional application is claimed, then the relationship between each application (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) must be specified in order to establish copendency throughout the entire chain of prior-filed applications. For example, where the reference to a prior nonprovisional application appears in the specification of an application as permitted for applications filed before September 16, 2012, a statement that “this application claims the benefit of Application Nos. C, B, and A” or “this application is a continuing application of Application Nos. C, B, and A” is improper. Applicant instead must state, for example, that “this application is a continuation of Application No. C, filed ---, which is a continuation of Application No. B, filed ---, which is a continuation of Application No. A, filed ---.

III. REFERENCE TO PRIOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS

When a nonprovisional application filed on or after September 16, 2012 is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing date of one or more provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the reference to the provisional application must be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(a)) and/or in the first sentence(s) specification. Where the reference to a prior provisional application appears in the first sentence(s) of the specification a statement such as “This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/---, filed ---, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ---, filed ---.” should appear as the first sentence(s) of the description. In addition, where a nonprovisional application benefit claim appears in the specification of an application filed before September 16, 2012 and the application is claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior application, which in turn claims the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a suitable reference would read, “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/---, filed ---, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/---, filed ---.”. Note that a design application cannot claim the benefit of a provisional application. See MPEP § 1504.20 for benefit information specific to design applications and MPEP § 2920.05(e) for benefit information specific to international design applications.

The relationship, continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part, is not required and should not be specified when the benefit of a prior provisional application is being claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). If such a relationship between a prior provisional application and the nonprovisional application is submitted, it may be unclear whether the applicant wishes to claim the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120. Thus, applicants seeking to claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not state that the application is a “continuation” of a provisional application or that the application claims 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit to a provisional application. Although 35 U.S.C. 120 does not preclude a benefit claim to a provisional application, it is not recommended that applicants claim the benefit to a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 since such a claim could have the effect of reducing the patent term, as the term of a patent issuing from such an application may be measured from the filing date of the provisional application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2).

211.03 Time Period for Making a Claim for Benefit Under 37 CFR 1.78 [R-08.2017]

37 CFR 1.78 specifies: (A) a time period within which a benefit claim to a prior nonprovisional application, international application, international design application, or provisional application must be stated or it is considered waived; and (B) provisions for the acceptance of the unintentionally delayed submission of a claim to the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application, international application, international design application, or provisional application.

If the application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the benefit claim of the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) must be made during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. If the application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the benefit claim must be made within the later of: (1) four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f); (2) four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage; or (3) sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) unless a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim is granted. See MPEP § 211.04.

If the application is a design application, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed application must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application.

If an applicant includes a claim to the benefit of a prior application elsewhere in the application but not in the manner specified in 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the benefit claim is not present in the proper place but is included in an oath or declaration, or the application transmittal letter, or in the first sentence(s) of the specification for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012) within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, the Office will not require a petition and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the benefit claim if the information concerning the benefit claim contained elsewhere in the application was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt. This is because the application will have been scheduled for publication on the basis of such information concerning the benefit claim. Applicant must still submit the benefit claim in the manner specified in 37 CFR 1.78 (i.e., in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 by an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76) to have a proper claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the benefit of a prior application. If, however, an applicant includes a benefit claim elsewhere in the application and the claim is not recognized by the Office as shown by its absence on the first filing receipt, the Office will require a petition and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the benefit claim if the correction is sought after expiration of the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78. This is because the application will not have been scheduled for publication on the basis of the information concerning the benefit claim contained elsewhere in the application.

A petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee would not be required for correcting a timely submitted benefit claim for the following situations:

• (A) Changing the relationship of the applications (e.g., changing from “continuation” or “divisional” to “continuation-in-part” or from “continuation-in-part” to “continuation” or “divisional”);
• (B) Changing the filing date of a prior-filed nonprovisional or provisional application; and
• (C) Changing a benefit claim of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 (e.g., “This application is a continuation of prior-filed provisional application No. ---”) to a benefit claim of the same provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (e.g., “This application claims the benefit of prior-filed provisional application No. ---”) during the pendency of the later-filed application. Note, however: If the later-filed application has issued as a patent, the correction cannot be made by a certificate of correction and would not be effective in a reissue application because the term of a patent is measured from the prior application’s filing date and removing the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) would have the effect of lengthening the term of the patent.

If a benefit claim is filed after the required time period and without a petition as required by 37 CFR 1.78, the applicant should be informed that the benefit claim was not entered and that a petition needs to be filed using form paragraph 2.39.

211.04 Delayed Benefit Claims [R-07.2022]

If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 is not submitted within the required time period, a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim may be filed. The petition must be accompanied by: (A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted); (B) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (C) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional.

While the Director may require additional information whenever there is a question of whether the delay was unintentional, a person filing a petition to accept a delayed benefit claim more than two years after the date the benefit claim was due is required to provide additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay that establishes that the entire delay was unintentional. This requirement is in addition to the requirement to provide a statement that the entire delay was unintentional in 37 CFR 1.78(c)(3) and (e)(3). See Clarification of the Practice for Requiring Additional Information in Petitions Filed in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 85 FR 12222-24 (March 2, 2020). See also MPEP § 711.03(c) for further discussion of the “unintentional” delay standard.

Effective May 13, 2015, 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) was amended to make the procedures under 37 CFR 1.78(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim applicable to design applications where the benefit claim was not submitted during the pendency of the design application. Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e) may be filed along with a request for certificate of correction after patent grant. See MPEP § 1481.03.

Likewise, if the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 is not submitted within the required time period, a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim may be filed. The petition must be accompanied by: (A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior provisional application (unless previously submitted); (B) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (C) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. In particular, when the petition to accept a delayed benefit claim is submitted more than two years after the date the benefit claim was due, the petition will require additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay that establishes that the entire delay was unintentional. See 37 CFR 1.78(c).

Effective December 18, 2013,35 U.S.C. 119(e)(1) no longer requires that the amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed provisional application be submitted during the pendency of the application. Therefore, a petition to revive is no longer required to add or correct a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) in an abandoned nonprovisional application filed on or after November 29, 2000. Applicant may simply file a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application in the abandoned nonprovisional application. It may be necessary to correct the benefit in the abandoned nonprovisional application so that the benefit claims in a later filed nonprovisional application claiming benefit of the abandoned nonprovisional application are proper.

Petitions for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim should be forwarded to the Office of Petitions. See MPEP § 1002.02(b).

DELAYED SUBMISSION OF BENEFIT CLAIM IN INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION

A petition under 37 CFR 1.78 for accepting an unintentionally delayed benefit claim and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are required to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) in an abandoned international application designating the United States, even when the international application did not enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. For example, when filing a “bypass” continuation application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that claims the benefit of an international application designating the United States that could have but did not claim the benefit of an earlier U.S. application, and the benefit claim is to be added to the international application, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 must be filed in the international application.

If a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c) or (e) is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then the petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as having been filed in the international application. See 37 CFR 1.78(i).

211.05 Sufficiency of Disclosure in Prior-Filed Application [R-01.2024]

I. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT

To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or earlier-filed nonprovisional application or provisional application for which benefit is claimed); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Prods., Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the disclosure of the prior-filed application must provide adequate support and enablement for the claimed subject matter of the later-filed application in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement.

A.Claiming the Benefit of Provisional Applications

Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. In New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294, 63 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court held that for a nonprovisional application to be afforded the benefit date of the provisional application, “the specification of the provisional must ‘contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,’ 35 U.S.C. 112¶1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the nonprovisional application.”

In New Railhead, the patented drill bit was the subject of a commercial offer for sale. A provisional application was filed after the sale offer, but well within the one year grace period of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A nonprovisional application, which issued as Patent No. 5,899,283, was filed within one year of the filing of the provisional application but more than one year after the sale offer. If the ‘283 patent was not afforded the benefit date of the provisional application, the patent would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) since it was filed more than one year after the commercial offer for sale. The court looked at claim 1 of the ‘283 patent which recites a bit body being angled with respect to the sonde housing. The court then reviewed the provisional application and concluded that nowhere in the provisional application is the bit body expressly described as “being angled with respect to the sonde housing” as recited in claim 1 of the ‘283 patent. The court held that the disclosure of the provisional application does not adequately support the invention claimed in the ‘283 patent as to the angle limitation and therefore, the ‘283 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(1) and the ‘283 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

A claim is not required in a provisional application. However, for a claim in a later filed nonprovisional application to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter of the claim in the later filed nonprovisional application. If a claim in the nonprovisional application is not adequately supported by the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application (as in New Railhead), that claim in the nonprovisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. If the filing date of the earlier provisional application is necessary, for example, in the case of an interference or to overcome a reference, care must be taken to ensure that the disclosure filed as the provisional application adequately provides (1) a written description of the subject matter of the claim(s) at issue in the later filed nonprovisional application, and (2) an enabling disclosure to permit one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in the later filed nonprovisional application without undue experimentation.

B.Claiming the Benefit of Nonprovisional Applications

The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. See MPEP § 201.07. The disclosure of a divisional application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application, or include at least that portion of the disclosure of the prior-filed application that is germane to the invention claimed in the divisional application. See MPEP § 201.06. The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application. A continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 201.08. Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. See Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1358, 1360, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (affirming the PTAB's decision in an inter partes review proceeding and holding that the patentee was not entitled to rely on the earlier filing dates of two nonprovisional applications and a provisional application because the prior-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the invention claimed in the challenged patent).

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, a claim in a U.S. application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement, in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). A claim in a subsequently filed application that relies on a combination of prior applications may not be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 since 35 U.S.C. 120 requires that the earlier filed application contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement for each claim in the subsequently filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674, 1677 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

A claim in the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application if the disclosure of the prior-filed application does not enable one skilled in the art to “use” the claimed invention. See In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1406, 161 USPQ 783, 786 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]o be entitled to the benefits provided by [35 U.S.C. 120], the invention disclosed in the “previously filed” application must be described therein in such a manner as to satisfy all the requirements of the first paragraph of [35 U.S.C.] 112, including that which requires the description to be sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to use the [invention].”).

Where the prior application (a nonprovisional application) is found to be fatally defective because of insufficient disclosure to support allowable claims, a later-filed application filed as a “continuation-in-part” of the first application to supply the deficiency is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application. Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 177 F.2d 583, 587, 83 USPQ 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1949) and cases cited therein. Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See, e.g., In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972).

By way of further illustration, if the claims of a continuation-in-part application which are only entitled to the continuation-in-part filing date “read on” published, publicly used or sold, or patented subject matter (e.g., as in a genus-species relationship) a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would be proper. Cases of interest in this regard are as follows: Mendenhall v. Cedarapids Inc., 5 F.3d 1557, 28 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971); In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 118 USPQ 101 (CCPA 1958); In re Steenbock, 83 F.2d 912, 30 USPQ 45 (CCPA 1936); and Ex parte Hageman, 179 USPQ 747 (Bd. App. 1971).

Form paragraphs 2.09 and 2.10 should be used where the claims of the later-filed application are not adequately disclosed or enabled by the disclosure of the prior application.

Form paragraph 2.10.01 should be used where applicant is claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) and the relationship (continuation or divisional) of the applications should be changed to continuation-in-part because the disclosure of the later-filed application contains matter not disclosed in the prior-filed nonprovisional application.

II. CRITICAL REFERENCE DATE OF PATENT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF AN EARLIER FILED APPLICATION

See MPEP § 2154.01(b) and MPEP § 2136.03 for discussion of when an issued patent, patent application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), or application deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) is available as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of a prior provisional or nonprovisional application’s filing date.