MPEP § 808.01 — Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness (Annotated Rules)
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 808.01, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness
This section addresses Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness. Primary authority: 37 CFR 806.06.
Key Rules
Mandatory Requirements (4)
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 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.
For example, relative to a combination and a subcombination thereof, the examiner should point out the reasons why he or she considers the subcombination to have utility by itself or in other combinations, and why he or she considers that the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed.
Each relationship of claimed inventions should be similarly treated and the reasons for the conclusions of distinctness or independence set forth. Form paragraphs 8.01, 8.02, and 8.14 – 8.20.02 may be used as appropriate to explain why the inventions as claimed are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.06.
Permitted Actions (1)
Each relationship of claimed inventions should be similarly treated and the reasons for the conclusions of distinctness or independence set forth. Form paragraphs 8.01, 8.02, and 8.14 – 8.20.02 may be used as appropriate to explain why the inventions as claimed are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.06.
Definitions & Scope (1)
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.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| – | 37 CFR § 806.06 |
| – | MPEP § 806.05 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 808.01 — Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness
Source: USPTO808.01 Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness [R-08.2012]
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.
For example, relative to a combination and a subcombination thereof, the examiner should point out the reasons why he or she considers the subcombination to have utility by itself or in other combinations, and why he or she considers that the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed.
Each relationship of claimed inventions should be similarly treated and the reasons for the conclusions of distinctness or independence set forth. Form paragraphs 8.01, 8.02, and 8.14 – 8.20.02 may be used as appropriate to explain why the inventions as claimed are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.06.