How should examiners explain reasons for distinctness or independence in restriction requirements?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

Examiners must provide clear and concise reasons for holding that inventions are either independent or distinct when issuing a restriction requirement. The MPEP provides guidance on how to explain these reasons:

As stated in MPEP 808.01: “The particular reasons relied on by the examiner for holding that the inventions as claimed are either independent or distinct should be concisely stated. A mere statement of conclusion is inadequate. The reasons upon which the conclusion is based should be given.”

The MPEP further advises:

• For combination and subcombination inventions, explain why the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations.
• Explain why the combination doesn’t require the particulars of the subcombination.
• Treat each relationship of claimed inventions similarly.
• Use appropriate form paragraphs (8.01, 8.02, and 8.14 – 8.20.02) to explain distinctness or independence.

Examiners should refer to MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.06 for detailed guidance on explaining distinctness or independence for various types of inventions.