Source: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/201_06.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 05:18:21
Document Index: 546274374

Matched Legal Cases: ['§201', '§201', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 601', '§ 211', '§ 1504', '§ 201', '§ 211', '§ 202']

MPEP 201.06: Divisional Application, Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
MPEP 201.06
Previous: §201.05 | Next: §201.06(a)
201.06 Divisional Application [R-08.2017]
A later application for an independent or distinct invention, carved out of a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States and disclosing and claiming only subject matter disclosed in the earlier or parent application, is known as a divisional application. The divisional application should set forth at least the portion of the earlier disclosure that is germane to the invention as claimed in the divisional application. A continuation-in-part application should not be designated as a divisional application. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not extend to continuation-in-part applications, stating that "the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications." Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001, 1007-1008 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus the disclosure presented in a divisional application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application.
A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner. The divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application, but not an international design application). The inventorship in the divisional application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application, and the divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (d) and (e), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for additional requirements and more information regarding entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a prior-filed copending application.
An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "divisional" of the provisional application. See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (a)-(c), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for requirements and information pertaining to entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application.
It is no longer appropriate to include the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office classification of the divisional application and the status and assigned art unit of the parent application in the application data sheet. See MPEP § 601.05.
Use form paragraph 2.01 to remind applicant of possible divisional status.
¶ 2.01 Possible Status as Divisional
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. [1], filed [2], appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq .
1. In brackets 1 and 2, insert the application number (series code and serial number) and filing date of the prior application, respectively.
2. This form paragraph should only be used if it appears that the application may be a divisional, but a benefit claim has not been properly established.
3. An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "divisional" of the prior application.
A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d). See MPEP § 1504.20.
While a divisional application may depart from the phraseology used in the parent application there may be no departure therefrom in substance or variation in the disclosure that would amount to "new matter" if introduced by amendment into the parent application. Compare MPEP § 201.08 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
For notation to be put in the file history by the examiner in the case of a divisional application, see MPEP § 202.