A problem about patent application

You should have applied for priority on the 3rd, but you didn't apply for priority on the 2nd. If so, first of all, it is doubtful whether application No.3 can enjoy priority. The content of application No.3 is basically the same, which has nothing to do with the judgment of whether the priority is established. The key depends on your opinion.

Whether the claim 1-3 of No.3 application is consistent with the claim of No.3 application (it is better to be completely the same without improvement, so that 1 00% can enjoy priority). If the applicant must modify it, that is, there is a so-called "non-critical improvement", it depends on whether the improvement is recorded in the application specification No 1, and it is not enough to record only the technical features of the improvement. It also depends on whether your improved technical scheme is recorded in the application specification 1 whole.

But look at your description, these improvements are not recorded in the original specification or claims, even if they are non-critical improvements, they basically cannot enjoy priority. Because the technical scheme is different as a whole, that is, the invention does not belong to the same theme.

In the same way, the three additional creditor's rights can enjoy priority if they are recorded in application 1, otherwise they will not enjoy priority.

Let me talk about the problem of application conflict first. If the priority is established, application No.3 may become the conflicting application of application No.2. I don't know what your applications No.2 and No.3 are, so it's hard to judge, only possible. The standard of judgment is the same as novelty judgment.

If the priority is not established, then application No.2 is the prior art of application No.3, and it is more than 90% possible that the comparison file 1 of application No.3 is the closest prior art..

If the benefits are maximized. That's the best case: application No.3 enjoys priority, and application No.2 is different from application No.3, and the difference lies in what you call "non-critical improvement". Because conflicting applications cannot be used to evaluate creativity, both applications No.2 and No.3 are expected to be authorized.

In the worst case, No.3 can't enjoy priority. No.2 is the existing technology of No.3, and the creativity of No.3 can be evaluated, so No.3 is basically hopeless. There is still a play on the 2 nd.

If you want to know more, you have to describe the application content of 1, 2, 3 in detail. Your description is too general to judge.