Skip over navigation

search for patents | search for trademarks

821 Treatment of Claims Held To Be Drawn to Nonelected Inventions [R-07.2022]

Claims found to be drawn to nonelected inventions, including claims drawn to nonelected species or inventions that may be eligible for rejoinder, are treated as indicated in MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.

All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. The examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention. Applicant may traverse the requirement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.143. If a final requirement for restriction is made by the examiner, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement if the applicant made a timely traversal. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971). When an election results in the withdrawal of claims such that the assigned examiner believes the C* classification picture is incorrect, the examiner should submit a C* classification challenge prior to an action on the merits of the elected claims to ensure the C* classification picture on the application appropriately reflects the elected invention.

821.01 After Election With Traverse [R-07.2015]

Where the initial requirement is traversed, the examiner should reconsider it. If, upon reconsideration, the examiner is still of the opinion that restriction is proper, the examiner should maintain the restriction requirement and make it final in the next Office action. See MPEP § 803.01. In doing so, the examiner should reply to the reasons or arguments advanced by applicant in the traverse. Form paragraph 8.25 should be used to make a restriction requirement final.

¶ 8.25 Answer to Arguments With Traverse

Applicant’s election with traverse of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that [3]. This is not found persuasive because [4].

The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the invention elected.
2. In bracket 3, insert in summary form, the ground(s) on which traversal is based.
3. In bracket 4, insert the reasons why the traversal was not found to be persuasive.

If the requirement is made final, the claims to the nonelected invention should be clearly indicated as being withdrawn from consideration. In this situation, the examiner should use form paragraph 8.05.

¶ 8.05 Claims Stand Withdrawn With Traverse

Claim [1] withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected [2], there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on [3].

Examiner Note:

In bracket 2, insert --invention-- or --species--.

This form paragraph will show that applicant has retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144. See MPEP § 818.01(c).

If the examiner, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion that the requirement for restriction is improper in whole or in part, he or she should clearly state in the next Office action that the requirement for restriction is withdrawn in whole or in part, specify which groups have been reinstated, and give an action on the merits of all the claims directed to the elected invention and any invention reinstated with the elected invention.

When the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the examiner should contact applicant and advise him or her of his or her options with regard to any pending claims withdrawn from consideration. Alternatively, applicant may be notified using form paragraph 8.03.

¶ 8.03 In Condition for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn with Traverse

This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on [2]. Applicant is given TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.

The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.

See also MPEP § 821.04 for rejoinder of certain nonelected inventions when the claims to the elected invention are allowable.

When preparing a final action in an application where there has been a traversal of a requirement for restriction, the examiner should indicate in the Office action which claims, if any, remain withdrawn from consideration.

Note that the petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed not later than appeal. This is construed to mean on or before the date the notice of appeal is filed. See MPEP § 1204. If the application is ready for allowance on or after the date of the notice of appeal and no petition has been filed, the examiner should simply cancel nonelected claims that are not eligible for rejoinder by examiner’s amendment, calling attention to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.144.

821.02 After Election Without Traverse [R-07.2022]

Where the initial requirement is not traversed (either expressly or by virtue of an incomplete reply), the examiner should take appropriate action on the elected claims including determining whether the restriction requirement should be withdrawn in whole or in part. See MPEP § 821.04. Form paragraphs 8.25.01 or 8.25.02 should be used by the examiner to acknowledge the election without traverse.

¶ 8.25.01 Election Without Traverse

Applicant’s election without traverse of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged.

¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply

Applicant’s election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).

Claims to the nonelected invention should be treated by using form paragraph 8.06.

¶ 8.06 Claims Stand Withdrawn Without Traverse

Claim [1] withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected [2], there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on [3].

Examiner Note:

In bracket 2, insert --invention--, or --species--.

This form paragraph will show that applicant has not retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144.

When applicant has not retained the right to petition the restriction requirement and the application is otherwise ready for allowance, the claims to the nonelected invention, except for claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions eligible for rejoinder, may be canceled by an examiner’s amendment, and the application passed to issue.

The examiner should use form paragraph 8.07 in this situation.

See also MPEP § 821.01 and § 821.04et seq.

¶ 8.07 Ready for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn Without Traverse

This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to [2] nonelected without traverse. Accordingly, claim [3] been canceled.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 2, insert --an invention--, --inventions--, --a species--, or --species--.

Note that even if an election was made without traverse, claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions that are eligible for rejoinder should be rejoined; if not rejoined, such claims that are eligible for rejoinder may only be canceled by examiner’s amendment when the cancelation is expressly authorized by applicant. If claims are directed to nonelected species and/or nonelected inventions that are not eligible for rejoinder, see form paragraph 8.07 and its associated guidance above for when claims may be canceled by an examiner’s amendment, and the application passed to issue.

821.03 Claims for Different Invention Added After an Office Action [R-07.2022]

Claims added by amendment following action by the examiner, as explained in MPEP § 818.02(a), and drawn to an invention other than the one previously claimed, should be treated as indicated in 37 CFR 1.145.

37 CFR 1.145 Subsequent presentation of claims for different invention.

If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §§ 1.143 and 1.144.

The action should include form paragraph 8.04.

¶ 8.04 Election by Original Presentation

Newly submitted claim [1] directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: [2]

Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim [3] withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.

To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.

Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the particular reason(s) why the newly submitted claim(s) is/are directed to independent or distinct invention(s).
- -For patentably distinct species, see MPEP §§ 806.04(b), 806.04(f) and 806.04(h). For example, insert --the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species--, and provide a description of the mutually exclusive characteristics of each species or grouping of species.
- -For patentably distinct inventions, see MPEP §§ 806.05(a) and 806.05(c)- 806.05(j).
- -For unrelated inventions, see MPEP §§ 802.01 and 806.06.

A complete action on all claims to the elected invention should be given.

If the applicant fails to request reconsideration of the election by original presentation in reply to the Office action containing the requirement, the examiner should treat the application as if the election was made without traverse. See MPEP § 821.02.

If the examiner finds all elected claims allowable following the amendment that added claims drawn to a new invention, the examiner cannot cancel the withdrawn claims without obtaining the applicant’s express authorization. The applicant must be provided the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the election by original presentation. In this situation, the examiner may obtain express authorization to cancel the withdrawn claims via an interview prior to mailing a notice of allowability with an examiner’s amendment canceling the withdrawn claims. If applicant’s express authorization is not obtained, then the examiner should issue an Ex parte Quayle action that requires cancelation of the withdrawn claims. In reply, the applicant can either cancel the withdrawn claims or traverse the election by original presentation requirement. If applicant traverses the election, the examiner must reconsider the election by original presentation and address applicant’s arguments if the election by original presentation is maintained. See MPEP § 821.01.

An amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention should not be entered. Such an amendment is nonresponsive. Applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 8.26. Examiners should take care to correctly designate the issue as a non-responsive amendment, which is not be confused with a notice of non-compliant amendment. Examiners may use a PTOL-90 with form paragraph 8.26 to create a notice of non-responsive amendment. Such Office Action may be designated “Informal or Non-Responsive Amendment After Examiner Action.”

¶ 8.26 Canceled Elected Claims, Non-Responsive

The amendment filed on [1] canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to a non-elected invention is non-responsive (MPEP § 821.03) and has not been entered. The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because [2].

Since the above-mentioned amendment appears to be a bona fide attempt to reply, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) ARE AVAILABLE but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should not be used for an application filed on or after August 25, 2006 that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or other provisions under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d). Form paragraph 8.26.AE should be used instead. See MPEP § 708.02, subsection IX.

The practice set forth in this section is not applicable where a provisional election of a single species or a group of patentably indistinct species was made in accordance with MPEP § 803.02 and applicant amends the claims such that the elected species or group is canceled, or where applicant presents claims that could not have been restricted from the claims drawn to the elected invention had they been presented earlier.

821.04 Rejoinder [R-07.2022]

The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Rejoinder involves withdrawal of a restriction requirement between an allowable elected invention and a nonelected invention and examination of the formerly nonelected invention on the merits.

In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. Furthermore, where restriction was required between a product and a process of making and/or using the product, and the product invention was elected and subsequently found allowable, all claims to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim for the claims directed to that process invention to be eligible for rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04(b). In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder.

Rejoined claims must be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112.

The requirement for restriction between the rejoined inventions must be withdrawn. Any claim(s) presented in a divisional application that are anticipated by, or rendered obvious over, the claims of the parent application may be subject to a double patenting rejection when the restriction requirement is withdrawn in the parent application. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP §§ 804.01 and 821.04(a).

The provisions of MPEP § 706.07 govern the propriety of making an Office action final in rejoinder situations. If rejoinder occurs after the first Office action on the merits, and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable, e.g., if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, then the next Office action may be made final where the new ground of rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendment (or based on information submitted in an IDS filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). See MPEP § 706.07(a).

If restriction is required between product and process claims, for example, and all the product claims would be allowable in the first Office action on the merits, upon rejoinder of the process claims, it would not be proper to make the first Office action on the merits final if the rejoined process claim did not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. This is because the rejoinder did not occur after the first Office action on the merits. Note that the provisions of MPEP § 706.07(b) govern the propriety of making a first Office action on the merits final.

Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.

Where applicant voluntarily presents claims to the product and process, for example, in separate applications (i.e., no restriction requirement was made by the Office), and one of the applications issues as a patent, the remaining application may be rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, where appropriate (see MPEP § 804 - § 804.03), and applicant may overcome the rejection by the filing of a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c) where appropriate. Similarly, if copending applications separately present product and process claims, provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections should be made where appropriate. However, once a determination as to the patentability of the product has been reached, any process claim directed to making or using an allowable product should not be rejected over prior art without consultation with a Technology Center Director.

See MPEP § 2147 for the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(b) to biotechnological processes and compositions of matter.

See MPEP § 2116.01 for guidance on the treatment of process claims which make or use a novel, nonobvious product.

Upon rejoinder of a nonelected invention, the assigned examiner should reconsider whether the C* classification picture is correct. If the assigned examiner believes that the C* classification picture is incorrect, the examiner should enter a C* classification challenge at the time of rejoinder

821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions [R-07.2022]

Where restriction was required between independent or distinct products, or between independent or distinct processes, and all claims directed to an elected invention are allowable, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. For example, a requirement for restriction should be withdrawn when a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim is allowable and any previously withdrawn claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations thereof. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim remain withdrawn from consideration. However, in view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, if any claim presented in a divisional application includes all the limitations of a claim that is allowable in the parent application, such claim may be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01

An amendment presenting additional claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.

When all claims to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, applicant must be advised that claims drawn to the nonelected invention have been rejoined and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn in its entirety. Form paragraph 8.45 may be used.

¶ 8.45 Elected Invention Allowable, Rejoinder of All Previously Withdrawn Claims

Claim [1] allowable. Claim [2 ], previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement [4] inventions [5], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [6], is hereby withdrawn and claim [7] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.

Examiner Note:

1. Where the elected invention is directed to a product and previously nonelected process claims are rejoined, form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this paragraph.
2. This form paragraph should be used whenever ALL previously withdrawn claims depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim (e.g., a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim) and wherein the non-elected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
3. In bracket 2, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
4. In bracket 3 insert-- requires-- or -- require--.
5. In bracket 4, insert either --between-- or --among--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) being rejoined.
7. In bracket 7, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either --is-- or --are--.

When no claims directed to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, form paragraph 8.49 should be used to explain why all nonelected claims are still withdrawn from further consideration.

¶ 8.49 Elected Invention Allowable, Claims Stand Withdrawn, Restriction Maintained

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when none of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim and wherein the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 3, insert the date of the restriction requirement being maintained.

Note that each additional invention is considered separately. When claims to one nonelected invention depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, and claims to another nonelected invention do not, applicant must be advised as to which claims have been rejoined and which claims remain withdrawn from further consideration. Form paragraph 8.50 may be used.

¶ 8.50 Elected Invention Allowable, Some Claims No Longer Considered Withdrawn

Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [3], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5]. Claim [6], directed to [7] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [8], directed to [9] withdrawn from consideration because [10] require all the limitations of an allowable claim.

In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when some, but not all, of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim and wherein the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 4, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
5. In bracket 5, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
6. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
7. In bracket 9, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
8. In bracket 10, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
9. If all of the claims are in proper form, i.e., they include all the limitations of an allowable claim, one of form paragraphs 8.45, 8.46 or 8.47must be used.

Where the application claims an allowable invention and discloses but does not claim an additional invention that depends on or otherwise requires all the limitations of the allowable claim, applicant may add claims directed to such additional invention by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312; amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.

Form paragraph 8.46 (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 if appropriate) must be used to notify applicant when nonelected claim(s) which depended from or required all the limitations of an allowable claim were canceled by applicant and may be reinstated by submitting the claim(s) in an amendment.

¶ 8.46 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, Other Issues Remain Outstanding

Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in a timely filed amendment in reply to this action. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.

In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. If no issues remain outstanding and application is otherwise ready for allowance, use form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.

¶ 8.47 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, Before Final Rejection, No Outstanding Issues Remaining

Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in an amendment, limited to the addition of such claim(s), filed within a time period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. If NO such amendment is submitted within the set time period, the application will be passed to issue. PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS OTHERWISE CLOSED.

In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has not been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). After final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.

¶ 8.47.01 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, After Final Rejection, No Outstanding Issues Remaining

Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). Before final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.

If the election is traversed, an additional paragraph worded as form paragraph 8.03 should be added to the holding.

¶ 8.03 In Condition for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn with Traverse

The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.

821.04(b) Rejoinder of Process Requiring an Allowable Product [R-07.2022]

Where claims directed to a product and to a process of making and/or using the product are presented in the same application, applicant may be called upon under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect claims to either the product or a process. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h). The claims to the nonelected invention will be withdrawn from further consideration under 37 CFR 1.142. See MPEP § 821 through § 821.03. However, if applicant elects a claim(s) directed to a product which is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. Upon rejoinder of claims directed to a previously nonelected process invention, the restriction requirement between the elected product and rejoined process(es) will be withdrawn.

If applicant cancels all the claims directed to a nonelected process invention before rejoinder occurs, the examiner should not withdraw the restriction requirement. This will preserve applicant’s rights under 35 U.S.C. 121.

Where the application as originally filed discloses the product and the process for making and/or using the product, and only claims directed to the product are presented for examination, applicant may present claims directed to the process of making and/or using the allowable product by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. In view of the rejoinder procedure, and in order to expedite prosecution, applicants are encouraged to present such process claims, preferably as dependent claims, in the application at an early stage of prosecution. Process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. However, if applicant files an amendment adding claims to a process invention, and the amendment includes process claims which do not depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product, all claims directed to that newly added invention may be withdrawn from consideration, via an election by original presentation (see MPEP § 821.03).

Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312. Amendments to add only process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed product claim and which meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112 may be entered.

Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116. When all claims to the elected product are in condition for allowance, all process claims eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP § 821.04) must be considered for patentability.

If an amendment after final rejection that otherwise complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116 would place all the elected product claim(s) in condition for allowance and thereby require rejoinder of process claims that raise new issues requiring further consideration (e.g., issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph), the amendment could be denied entry. For example, if pending nonelected process claims depend from a finally rejected product claim, and the amendment (or affidavit or other evidence that could have been submitted earlier) submitted after final rejection, if entered, would put the product claim(s) in condition for allowance, entry of the amendment (or evidence submission) would not be required if it would raise new issues that would require further consideration, such as issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph necessitated by rejoinder of previously nonelected process claims.

Before mailing an advisory action in the above situation, it is recommended that applicant be called and given the opportunity to cancel the process claims to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims, or to file an RCE to continue prosecution of the process claims in the same application as the product claims.

In after final situations when no amendment or evidence is submitted, but applicant submits arguments that persuade the examiner that all the product claims are allowable, in effect the final rejection of the product claims is not sustainable, and any rejection of the rejoined process claims must be done in a new Office action. If the process claims would be rejected, applicant may be called before mailing a new Office action and given the opportunity to cancel the process claims and to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims. If a new Office action is prepared indicating the allowability of the product claim and including a new rejection of the process claims, the provisions of MPEP § 706.07 govern the propriety of making the Office action final.

Form paragraph 8.21.04 should be included in any requirement for restriction between a product and a process of making or process of using the product. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h).

Form paragraph 8.42 or 8.43 should be used to notify applicant of the rejoinder of process inventions which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim.

¶ 8.42 Allowable Product, Rejoinder of at Least One Process Claim, Less Than All Claims

Claim [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2], directed to the process of making or using the allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim [4], directed to the invention(s) of [5] require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and [6] NOT been rejoined.

Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement [7] groups [8] as set forth in the Office action mailed on [9] is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Examiner Note:

1. If ALL previously withdrawn process claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claims followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of ALL the rejoined process claims.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
5. In bracket 4, insert the number(s) of the claims NOT being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s) or subject matter of the invention(s) to which the claims NOT being rejoined are directed, followed by either --, do not all-- or --, does not--.
7. In bracket 6, insert --has-- or --have--.
8. In bracket 7, insert either -- among -- or -- between--.
9. In bracket 8, insert group numbers of the elected product and rejoined process.

¶ 8.43 Allowable Product, Rejoinder of All Previously Withdrawn Process Claims

Claim [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2] , directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.

Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4] is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Examiner Note:

1. If LESS THAN ALL previously withdrawn claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.42 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of the process claim(s) previously withdrawn from consideration.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
5. If rejoinder occurs after the first Office action on the merits and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable, e.g., if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, then the next Office action may be made final if proper under MPEP § 706.07(a).

[top]

This page is owned by Patents.

Last Modified: 10/30/2024 08:50:25