uspto.gov
Skip over navigation

803    Restriction — When Proper [R-08.2012]

Under the statute, the claims of an application may properly be required to be restricted to one of two or more claimed inventions only if they are able to support separate patents and they are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).

If the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions.

I.CRITERIA FOR RESTRICTION BETWEEN PATENTABLY DISTINCT INVENTIONS

There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:

II.GUIDELINES

Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.

Where plural inventions are capable of being viewed as related in two ways, both applicable criteria for distinctness must be demonstrated to support a restriction requirement.

If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm’r Pat. 1978).

For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush-type claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP § 806.04 - § 806.04(i) and § 808.01(a).

803.01   Review by Examiner with at Least Partial Signatory Authority [R-07.2015]

Since requirements for restriction under 35 U.S.C. 121 are discretionary with the Director, it becomes very important that the practice under this section be carefully administered. Notwithstanding the fact that this section of the statute apparently protects the applicant against the dangers that previously might have resulted from compliance with an improper requirement for restriction, IT STILL REMAINS IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT NO REQUIREMENT BE MADE WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF TWO PATENTS FOR THE SAME INVENTION. See MPEP § 804.01. Therefore, to guard against this possibility, only an examiner with permanent full signatory authority or temporary full signatory authority may sign final Office actions containing a final requirement for restriction. An examiner with permanent partial signatory authority or temporary partial signatory authority may sign non-final Office actions containing a final requirement for restriction.

803.02   Markush Claims [R-08.2012]

A Markush-type claim recites alternatives in a format such as “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r Pat. 1925). The members of the Markush group (A, B, and C in the example above) ordinarily must belong to a recognized physical or chemical class or to an art-recognized class. However, when the Markush group occurs in a claim reciting a process or a combination (not a single compound), it is sufficient if the members of the group are disclosed in the specification to possess at least one property in common which is mainly responsible for their function in the claimed relationship, and it is clear from their very nature or from the prior art that all of them possess this property. Inventions in metallurgy, refractories, ceramics, pharmacy, pharmacology and biology are most frequently claimed under the Markush formula but purely mechanical features or process steps may also be claimed by using the Markush style of claiming. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).

If the members of the Markush group are sufficiently few in number or so closely related that a search and examination of the entire claim can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine all the members of the Markush group in the claim on the merits, even though they may be directed to independent and distinct inventions. In such a case, the examiner will not follow the procedure described below and will not require provisional election of a single species. See MPEP § 808.02.

Since the decisions in In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978), it is improper for the Office to refuse to examine that which applicants regard as their invention, unless the subject matter in a claim lacks unity of invention. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980); and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). Broadly, unity of invention exists where compounds included within a Markush group (1) share a common utility, and (2) share a substantial structural feature essential to that utility.

This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.

As an example, in the case of an application with a Markush-type claim drawn to the compound X-R, wherein R is a radical selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, D, and E, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species, XA, XB, XC, XD, or XE. The Markush-type claim would then be examined fully with respect to the elected species and any species considered to be clearly unpatentable over the elected species. If on examination the elected species is found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species shall be rejected, and claims to the nonelected species would be held withdrawn from further consideration. A second action on the rejected claims can be made final unless the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the 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).

On the other hand, should the examiner determine that the elected species is allowable, the examination of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush-type claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected species held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search, however, will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Should applicant, in response to this rejection of the Markush-type claim, overcome the rejection, as by amending the Markush-type claim to exclude the species anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, the amended Markush-type claim will be reexamined. The examination will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. In the event prior art is found during the reexamination that anticipates or renders obvious the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action can be made final unless the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the 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). Amendments submitted after the final rejection further restricting the scope of the claim may be denied entry if they do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116. See MPEP § 714.13.

If a Markush claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of another generic or linking claim, see MPEP § 809.

803.03    Transitional Applications [R-08.2012]

PRACTICE RE TRANSITIONAL APPLICATION

37 CFR 1.129  Transitional procedures for limited examination after final rejection and restriction practice.

*****

  • (b)
    • (1) In an application, other than for reissue or a design patent, that has been pending for at least three years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in the application to any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 and 365(c), no requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications shall be made or maintained in the application after June 8, 1995, except where:
      • (i) The requirement was first made in the application or any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 and 365(c) prior to April 8, 1995;
      • (ii) The examiner has not made a requirement for restriction in the present or parent application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant; or
      • (iii) The required fee for examination of each additional invention was not paid.
    • (2) If the application contains more than one independent and distinct invention and a requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications cannot be made or maintained pursuant to this paragraph, applicant will be so notified and given a time period to:
      • (i) Elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined, if no election has been made prior to the notice, and pay the fee set forth in 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects;
      • (ii) Confirm an election made prior to the notice and pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in addition to the one invention which applicant previously elected; or
      • (iii) File a petition under this section traversing the requirement. If the required petition is filed in a timely manner, the original time period for electing and paying the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) will be deferred and any decision on the petition affirming or modifying the requirement will set a new time period to elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and to pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects.
    • (3) The additional inventions for which the required fee has not been paid will be withdrawn from consideration under § 1.142(b). An applicant who desires examination of an invention so withdrawn from consideration can file a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 121.
  • (c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any application filed after June 8, 1995.

“Restriction” under 37 CFR 1.129(b) applies to both restriction requirements under 37 CFR 1.142 and election of species requirements under 37 CFR 1.146.

37 CFR 1.129(b)(1) provides for examination of more than one independent and distinct invention in certain applications pending for 3 years or longer as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference to any earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). Applicant will not be permitted to have such additional invention(s) examined in an application if:

  • (A) the requirement was made in the application or in an earlier application relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) prior to April 8, 1995;
  • (B) no restriction requirement was made with respect to the invention(s) in the application or earlier application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant; or
  • (C) the required fee for examination of each additional invention was not paid.

Only if one of these exceptions applies is a normal restriction requirement appropriate and telephone restriction practice may be used.

Examples of what constitute “actions by the applicant” in 37 CFR 1.129(b)(1) are:

  • (A) applicant abandoned the application and continued to refile the application such that no Office action could be issued in the application,
  • (B) applicant requested suspension of prosecution under 37 CFR 1.103(a) such that no Office action could be issued in the application,
  • (C) applicant disclosed a plurality of independent and distinct inventions in the present or parent application, but delayed presenting claims to more than one of the disclosed independent and distinct inventions in the present or parent application such that no restriction requirement could be made prior to April 8, 1995, and
  • (D) applicant combined several applications, each of which claimed a different independent and distinct invention, into one large “continuing” application, but delayed filing the continuing application first claiming more than one independent and distinct invention such that no restriction requirement could be made prior to April 8, 1995.

In examples (A) and (B), the fact that the present or parent application claiming independent and distinct inventions was on an examiner’s docket for at least 3 months prior to abandonment or suspension, or in examples (C) and (D), the fact that the amendment claiming independent and distinct inventions was first filed, or the continuing application first claiming the additional independent and distinct inventions was on an examiner’s docket, at least 3 months prior to April 8, 1995, is prima facie evidence that applicant’s actions did not prevent the Office from making a requirement for restriction with respect to those independent and distinct inventions prior to April 8, 1995. Furthermore, an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) does not constitute such “actions by the applicant” under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(1).

NOTE: If an examiner believes an application falls under the exception that no restriction could be made prior to April 8, 1995, due to applicant’s action, the application must be brought to the attention of the Technology Center (TC) Special Program Examiner for review.

Under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(2), if the application contains claims to more than one independent and distinct invention, and no requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications can be made or maintained, applicant will be notified and given a time period to:

  • (A) elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined, if no election has been made prior to the notice, and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects,
  • (B) in situations where an election was made in reply to a requirement for restriction that cannot be maintained, confirm the election made prior to the notice and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in addition to the one invention which applicant previously elected, or
  • (C) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(2) traversing the requirement without regard to whether the requirement has been made final. No petition fee is required.

37 CFR 1.129(b)(2) also provides that if the petition is filed in a timely manner, the original time period for electing and paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) will be deferred and any decision on the petition affirming or modifying the requirement will set a new time period to elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and to pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects.

Under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(3), each additional invention for which the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) has not been paid will be withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142(b). An applicant who desires examination of an invention so withdrawn from consideration can file a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 121.

37 CFR 1.129(c) clarifies that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.129(a) and (b) are not applicable to any application filed after June 8, 1995. However, any application filed on June 8, 1995, would be subject to a 20-year patent term.

Form paragraph 8.41 may be used to notify applicant that the application is a transitional application and is entitled to consideration of additional inventions upon payment of the required fee.

¶ 8.41    Transitional Restriction or Election of Species Requirement – pre-GATT Filing

This application is subject to the transitional restriction provisions of Public Law 103-465, which became effective on June 8, 1995, because:

  • 1. the application was filed on or before June 8, 1995, and has an effective U.S. filing date of June 8, 1992, or earlier;
  • 2. a requirement for restriction was not made in the present or a parent application prior to April 8, 1995; and
  • 3. the examiner was not prevented from making a requirement for restriction in the present or a parent application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant.

The transitional restriction provisions permit applicant to have more than one independent and distinct invention examined in the same application by paying a fee for each invention in excess of one.

Final rules concerning the transition restriction provisions were published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 20195 (April 25, 1995) and in the Official Gazette at 1174 OG 15 (May 2, 1995). The final rules at 37 CFR 1.17(s) include the fee amount required to be paid for each additional invention as set forth in the following requirement for restriction. See the current fee schedule for the proper amount of the fee.

Applicant must either: (1) elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention in excess of one which applicant elects; or (2) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.129(b) traversing the requirement.

Examiner Note:

  • 1. This form paragraph should be used in all restriction or election of species requirements made in applications subject to the transition restriction provisions set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(b). The procedure is NOT applicable to any design or reissue application.

803.03(a)   Transitional Application — Linking Claim Allowable [R-08.2012]

Whenever divided inventions in a transitional application are rejoined because a linking claim is allowable (MPEP § 809, § 821.04, and § 821.04(a)) and applicant paid the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for the additional invention, applicant should be notified that he or she may request a refund of the fee paid for that additional invention.

803.03(b)   Transitional Application — Generic Claim Allowable [R-08.2012]

Whenever claims drawn to an additional species in a transitional application for which applicant paid the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) are no longer withdrawn from consideration because they are fully embraced by an allowable generic claim, applicant should be notified that he or she may request a refund of the fee paid for that additional species.

The determination of when claims to a nonelected species would no longer be withdrawn from consideration should be made as indicated in MPEP § 806.04(d), § 821.04, and § 821.04(a).

Flowchart Showing Transitional Restriction Practice under 37 CFR 1.129(b)

803.04    Nucleotide Sequences [R-07.2015]

Polynucleotide molecules defined by their nucleic acid sequence (hereinafter “nucleotide sequences”) that encode different proteins are structurally distinct chemical compounds. These sequences are thus deemed to normally constitute independent and distinct inventions within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 121. Absent evidence to the contrary, each such nucleotide sequence is presumed to represent an independent and distinct invention, subject to a restriction requirement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 121 and 37 CFR 1.141et seq.

In 1996, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks decided sua sponte to partially waive the requirements of 37 CFR 1.141et seq. and permit a reasonable number of such nucleotide sequences to be claimed in a single application. See Examination of Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequences, 1192 OG 68 (November 19, 1996).

In 2007, the Commissioner for Patents rescinded the waiver. See Examination of Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequences, 1316 OG 123 (March 27, 2007). All pending applications are subject to the 2007 OG notice. Note, however, that supplemental restriction requirements will not be advanced in applications that have already received an action on their merits for multiple nucleotide sequences in the absence of extenuating circumstances. For national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), polynucleotide inventions will be considered for restriction, rejoinder, and examination practice in accordance with the standards set forth in MPEP Chapter 800. Claims to polynucleotide molecules will be considered for independence, relatedness, distinction and burden in the same manner as claims to any other type of molecule.

See MPEP § 1850 for treatment of claims containing independent and distinct nucleotide sequences in international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and national stage applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371.

803.05   Reissue Application Practice [R-07.2015]

37 CFR 1.176 Examination of reissue.

*****

  • (b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent claims will not be required). If restriction is required, the subject matter of the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.

Restriction practice relating to reissue applications is governed by 37 CFR 1.176(b) which specifies that restriction may only be required between the invention(s) of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed invention(s) set forth in new claims added in the reissue application. The claims of the original patent must not be restricted as being directed to two or more independent and distinct inventions and must be examined together. Where restriction is required by the examiner, the invention(s) set forth by the original patent claims and any newly added claims that are directed to the same invention(s) will be held as constructively elected. Any new claim that is directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from the invention(s) of the original patent claims will be withdrawn from consideration. See MPEP § 1450 for a detailed explanation of this practice. Note that applicant may initiate a division of the claims by filing more than one reissue application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.177. See MPEP § 1451 for a detailed explanation of this practice.

Where a restriction (or an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a divisional application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application. Once an applicant acquiesces to a restriction (or an election of species) requirement, any invention distinct from that elected and prosecuted to allowance—whether originally claimed or not—can only be pursued in a timely-filed divisional application. A reissue applicant’s failure to timely file a divisional application is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on the elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Accordingly, this is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 229 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP § 1412.01.

[top]

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office
This page is owned by Patents.
Last Modified: 11/04/2015 11:01:49