Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions [R-5] - 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions [R-5]
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, any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim should be withdrawn. For example, a requirement for restriction should be withdrawn when a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim is allowable and any previously withdrawn claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations thereof.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 Claims that do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim remain withdrawn from consideration.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 continuing 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 Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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.
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be advised that claims drawn to the nonelected invention have been rejoined and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. 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¶ 8.45 Elected Invention Allowable, Rejoinder of All Previously Withdrawn Claims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 Claim [2 ], previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] all the limitations of an allowable claim.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 continuation or 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 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least in part.
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 withdrawn from further consideration.
**>¶ 8.49 Elected Invention Allowable, Claims Stand Withdrawn as Not In Required Form
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. Claim [4] , directed to [5] withdrawn from further consideration because [6] require all the limitations of an allowable generic linking claim as required by 37 CFR 1.141.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or 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 (or form paragraph 8.50) 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.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 5, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
5. In bracket 6, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
<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. Claim [4] , directed to [5] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [6] , directed to [7] withdrawn from consideration because [8] 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 continuation or 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.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 5, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
5. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
6. In bracket 8, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
7. 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 8.47 must 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. Claim [5] , which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [6] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [7] . 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 continuation or 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 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least 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 number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
7. In bracket 6, 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. Claim [5] , which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [6] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [7] . 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 ONE MONTH, or THIRTY DAYS, whichever is longer, 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 continuation or 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 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 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least 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 number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
7. In bracket 6, 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. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or 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 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 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least 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.
<If the election is traversed, an additional paragraph worded as form paragraph 8.03should be added to the holding.
¶ 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 ONE MONTH or THIRTY DAYS from the date of this letter, whichever is longer, 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.
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents