What happens if an applicant cancels claims without an express election statement?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-27 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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. When an applicant cancels claims without making an express election statement, MPEP 818.02(d) provides guidance: If the applicant’s reply to a restriction requirement doesn’t expressly state the elected invention, But cancels claims to all but one of the inventions, The remaining invention is deemed to be the elected invention. The MPEP states: “If applicant’s reply to a requirement for restriction does not expressly state the invention elected, but cancels claims to all but one of the inventions, the remaining invention will be deemed to be the elected invention.” This means that the act of canceling claims can serve as an implicit election, even without an explicit statement from the applicant. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Requirement for Designating One Invention to Prosecute MPEP 818 Requirement for Restricting Examination of Multiple Inventions MPEP 818 Permitted Traverse Restriction Requirement with Specific Reasons MPEP 818 Required Election of Invention for Examination Required MPEP 818 Required Applicant Must Elect Invention for Examination MPEP 818 Required Election Becomes Fixed After Merits Action MPEP 818 Election Becomes Fixed After Merits Examined MPEP 818 Permitted Requirement for Reissue Oath or Declaration MPEP 1004 Requirement for Identifying Foreign Patents and Published Applications MPEP 1134.01 Requirement for Identifying Foreign and U.S. Patents by Inventor or Applicant MPEP 1134.01 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What are the key elements patent examiners check in amended applications? What happens if the linking claim is found allowable in a restriction requirement? Can a broad allegation of error satisfy the requir...