MPEP § 821.04(a) — Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions (Annotated Rules)
§821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 821.04(a), 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.
Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions
This section addresses Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 121, 37 CFR 1.104, and 37 CFR 1.121. Contains: 1 requirement, 1 guidance statement, and 4 other statements.
Key Rules
Restriction Requirement (MPEP 802-803)
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).
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).
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be advised that claims drawn to the nonelected invention have been rejoined and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn in its entirety. Form paragraph 8.45 may be used.
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).
8. In bracket 7, 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.
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.
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.
8. In bracket 7, 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.
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.
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.
Withdrawn Claims
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818)
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
2. This form paragraph 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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
2. This form paragraph 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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
Linking Claims (MPEP 809)
2. This form paragraph 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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
2. This form paragraph 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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
Safe Harbor for Divisional
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
Restriction and Election
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
Election of Species
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
Examination Procedures
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
Rejoinder of Claims (MPEP 821.04)
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 in its entirety. Form paragraph 8.45 may be used.
Examiner Form Paragraphs
Examiner form paragraphs are standard language that you might see in an Office Action or communication from the USPTO. Examiners have latitude to change the form paragraphs, but you will often see this exact language.
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 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 .
- Withdraw Restriction Between Inventions
- Allowable Claim Requires Withdrawn Claims
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Examined
- Claims Not Requiring Allowable Limitations Remain Withdrawn
- Restriction Requirement Withdrawal After Allowance
- Divisional Application Claims Must Not Duplicate Parent
- Double Patenting Rejection for Divisional Applications with Consonance
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Numbered
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 maintained because the nonelected claim(s) do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
- Withdraw Restriction Between Inventions
- Allowable Claim Requires Withdrawn Claims
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Examined
- Claims Not Requiring Allowable Limitations Remain Withdrawn
- Restriction Requirement Withdrawal After Allowance
- Divisional Application Claims Must Not Duplicate Parent
- Double Patenting Rejection for Divisional Applications with Consonance
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Numbered
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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5] . Claim [6] , directed to [7] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [8] , directed to [9] withdrawn from consideration because [10] 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 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 .
- Withdraw Restriction Between Inventions
- Allowable Claim Requires Withdrawn Claims
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Examined
- Claims Not Requiring Allowable Limitations Remain Withdrawn
- Restriction Requirement Withdrawal After Allowance
- Divisional Application Claims Must Not Duplicate Parent
- Double Patenting Rejection for Divisional Applications with Consonance
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Numbered
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 . Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6] . Claim [7] , which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9] . 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 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 .
- Withdraw Restriction Between Inventions
- Allowable Claim Requires Withdrawn Claims
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Examined
- Claims Not Requiring Allowable Limitations Remain Withdrawn
- Restriction Requirement Withdrawal After Allowance
- Divisional Application Claims Must Not Duplicate Parent
- Double Patenting Rejection for Divisional Applications with Consonance
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Numbered
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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6] . Claim [7] , which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9] . 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 TWO MONTHS 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 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 .
- Withdraw Restriction Between Inventions
- Allowable Claim Requires Withdrawn Claims
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Examined
- Claims Not Requiring Allowable Limitations Remain Withdrawn
- Restriction Requirement Withdrawal After Allowance
- Divisional Application Claims Must Not Duplicate Parent
- Double Patenting Rejection for Divisional Applications with Consonance
- Claims Requiring All Allowable Limitations Must Be Numbered
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 TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter 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.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Election of Species Examination Procedures Restriction and Election Safe Harbor for Divisional Withdrawn Claims | 35 U.S.C. § 121 |
| Election of Species Examination Procedures Restriction and Election Safe Harbor for Divisional Withdrawn Claims | 37 CFR § 1.104 |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.116 |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.121 |
| – | 37 CFR § 1.312 |
| Election of Species Examination Procedures Restriction and Election Safe Harbor for Divisional Withdrawn Claims | MPEP § 804.01 |
| Restriction Requirement (MPEP 802-803) | MPEP § 806.05(j) |
| – | Form Paragraph § 8.03 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 8.43 |
| Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818) Linking Claims (MPEP 809) Rejoinder of Claims (MPEP 821.04) Restriction Requirement (MPEP 802-803) Withdrawn Claims | Form Paragraph § 8.45 |
| Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818) Linking Claims (MPEP 809) Withdrawn Claims | Form Paragraph § 8.46 |
| Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818) Restriction Requirement (MPEP 802-803) Withdrawn Claims | Form Paragraph § 8.47 |
| Restriction Requirement (MPEP 802-803) | Form Paragraph § 8.47.01 |
| Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818) Linking Claims (MPEP 809) Withdrawn Claims | Form Paragraph § 8.49 |
| Election Requirement (MPEP 808, 818) Linking Claims (MPEP 809) Withdrawn Claims | Form Paragraph § 8.50 |
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 § 821.04(a) — Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions
Source: USPTO821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions [R-07.2022]
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, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. 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 divisional 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. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See 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 in its entirety. 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 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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
- 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 still withdrawn from further consideration.
¶ 8.49 Elected Invention Allowable, Claims Stand Withdrawn, Restriction Maintained
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 maintained because the nonelected claim(s) do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
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 none of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
- 3. In bracket 2, insert — between– or –among– followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
- 4. In bracket 3, insert the date of the restriction requirement being maintained.
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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5]. Claim [6], directed to [7] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [8], directed to [9] withdrawn from consideration because [10] 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 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 and wherein the nonelected 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 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
- 3. In bracket 2, insert — between– or –among– followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
- 4. In bracket 4, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
- 5. In bracket 5, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
- 6. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species being rejoined followed by either — is– or — are–.
- 7. In bracket 9, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by — remains– or –remain–.
- 8. In bracket 10, insert –it does not– or –they do not all–.
- 9. 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 8.47must 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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. 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 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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn 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 date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
- 7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
- 8. In bracket 7, 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.
- 9. In bracket 8, 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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. 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 TWO MONTHS 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 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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn 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 date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
- 7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
- 8. In bracket 7, 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.
- 9. In bracket 8, 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. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a 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 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn 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 date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
- 7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
If the election is traversed, an additional paragraph worded as form paragraph 8.03 should 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 TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter 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.