Divided patent applications
A US patent application was sometimes "divided" into two applications. These descendant applications could later be granted or not granted, separately. The concept of being "divided" relates to an application, with a serial number. Whatever "division" means would have been resolved by the time a patent was granted, so we would not say that a granted patent was divided.
As part of the event of "division", the serial number of the original seems to have lost its traction, or meaning, or importance and authority in the US patent system. Instead the descendants get their own serial numbers which were then managed by the USPO. Presumably the descendants could also have different technical classifications from one another, and be assigned to different examiners. Maybe the reason for "division" was to split the work into different specialties or USPO divisions.
Let's tag "divided" patent applications and their descendant patents with the Techtype, Divided patent, so as to track the history of these events and make inferences about various small research questions that help support an understanding of this history of innovation, such as:
- What was the stated USPO law or policy of divided patents?
- What was the usual administrative practice related to divided patents?
- When did the patented innovations really occur?
- Was "division" more common in certain technical fields, or time periods, or with certain patent agents or examiners?
- Was there some pattern or meaning to "divided patents" that is not obvious from the stated policy of the patent office?
- Was "division" costly to anyone? Did it cause detectable delays?
- Was the reason for "division" associated with the need to split the work among specialists at the USPO who were in different divisions?
- What was the grant rate of the successor patents? Was it common that one of the descendant patents got approved and the other rejected?
- Did patent offices in other countries have some analogous policy, law, or practice to the US concept of "divided" patent applications?
This wiki has 4 patents categorized in "Divided patent applications" or "Divided patents" or "Divided patent".
Patents in categories Divided patent applications or Divided patents or Divided patent
- Patent US-1911-1203550 (English title: Hydroaeroplane, Inventors: Glenn Hammond Curtiss, Applicant firm: Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation)
- Patent US-1911-1420609 (English title: Hydroaeroplane, Inventors: Glenn Hammond Curtiss, Applicant firm: Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation)
- Patent US-1915-1223017 (English title: Aileron, Inventors: Albert Francis Zahm)
- Patent US-1916-1326010 (English title: Aileron of Variable-Aspect Ratio, Inventors: Albert Francis Zahm)
See the related concept "Renewed patent applications," which characterizes US patent applications which needed to get a new serial number because of a delay or long duration perhaps. (We don't know exactly yet.)
Modern definitions
- See [1] There is apparently a post-PCT agreement that a patent should have a single/unified inventive concept, and that if it has more than one it should be divided. They use the term "divisional". Let's explicate this.
- a Japanese angle on it
- w:Divisional patent application - says that the Paris Convention articulates this "divisional" step or category
- https://www.jamesandwells.com/wp-content/uploads/divisional-patent-applications-what-are-they-and-why-should-you-use-them.pdf - James and Wells discussion of them. They say "divisional" describes the part that's spun off into a new patent application
- Spoor.com law firm South African law firm characterization of divisional patent applications
- Hindles law firm defn
| Enclosing categories | US patent classification systems |
|---|---|
| Subcategories | |
| Keywords | Serial number, Renewed patent applications, US patent law, Administrative culture, Patent institutions |
| Start year | |
| End year |
