The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has changed its rules governing continuing applications and Requests for Continued Examination (RCE). According to the USPTO, the changes will allow it to conduct a better and more thorough and reliable examination of patent applications. The new rules should prompt patent applicants to examine their portfolios and determine whether they should take any action before the new rules take effect on November 1, 2007.
The new rules will not have any effect on the applicant’s ability to file continuing applications before they take effect. On or after November 1, the new rules will limit applicants to two continuing applications (e.g., continuations or continuations-in-part) and a single RCE in any one application family. Applicants seeking to file additional applications exceeding these limits must petition the USPTO and show that the additional application or RCE is justified.
These new limits are a significant departure from the USPTO’s prior rules governing continuing applications and RCEs. However, the USPTO has adopted policies for the transition that will provide applicants some reprieve. The USPTO’s “one more” policy will allow applicants to file an additional continuing application, even after November 1, without requiring a petition and showing, so long as the initial application was filed prior to August 21, 2007. Any continuations or continuations-in-part filed between August 21 and November 1 will exhaust the “one more” application allowance.
The figure below illustrates the application of this policy. The initial application (I) and two continuations (C) were filed prior to August 21, 2007. The applicant is therefore permitted “one more” continuation or continuation-in-part without petition. In this example, the “one more” application was filed prior to November 1, 2007, but note that it may have been filed after that date without a petition and showing. As a result of filing the additional application, the applicant exhausted the “one more” application allowance. Any subsequent continuation application (P) requires the appropriate petition and showing.
If you have any questions about the USPTO’s rules, or their effect on your patent portfolio, please contact the Intellectual Property Group at Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
Latest News
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.