Divisional: usually the result of Restriction Requirement. One advantage of division is that it is possible to use Restriction Requirement to avoid obvious type double patenting. In view of the court’s recent judgment on double patenting, this can be effectively used - list all rights that need to be fought for in the parent case as much as possible, and let the examiner give Restriction, so as to avoid the rejection of the obviousness type double patenting based on the same family of applications. . Usually the instructions are the same as the parent case.
Continuation: If the applicant believes that the claims of the parent case do not cover all inventions, the applicant can continue to claim the remaining inventions through continuation. The claims of a continuation can overlap with those of the parent case. For example, in order to obtain quick authorization, the applicant focuses on claiming narrow scope of claims in the parent case, and then submits a Continuation to strive for a larger scope of protection. Usually the instructions are the same as the parent case.
Continuation-in-part: Use with caution. Newly added items do not enjoy the priority of the parent case, but the patent validity period is calculated from the filing date of the parent case (a waste of patent validity period). At the same time, since the new U.S. patent law has been implemented, if the old patent law applies to the parent case and the CIP contains claims involving newly added content, then the CIP application submitted now is likely to make the CIP no longer applicable to the old patent law and needs to be filed under the new patent law. Examination and litigation under patent law.