MPEP § 806 — Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions (Annotated Rules)
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 806, 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.
Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions
This section addresses Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions. Primary authority: 37 CFR 806.05(j) and 37 CFR 809.03.
Key Rules
Conditional Requirements (1)
Where restriction is required by the Office double patenting cannot be held, and thus, it is imperative the requirement should never be made where related inventions as claimed are not distinct. For (B) and (C) see MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.05(j) and § 809.03. See MPEP § 802.01 for criteria for patentably distinct inventions.
Permitted Actions (3)
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
- (A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § 806.06.
- (B) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
- (C) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
- (D) A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic thereto. 37 CFR 1.141, MPEP § 806.04.
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
…
(B) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
…
(D) A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic thereto.
Definitions & Scope (4)
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows (A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § 806.06.
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
…
(C) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
…
37 CFR 1.141, MPEP § 806.04.
Where restriction is required by the Office double patenting cannot be held, and thus, it is imperative the requirement should never be made where related inventions as claimed are not distinct. For (B) and (C) see MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.05(j) and § 809.03. See MPEP § 802.01 for criteria for patentably distinct inventions.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| – | 37 CFR § 1.141 |
| – | 37 CFR § 806.05(j) |
| – | 37 CFR § 809.03 |
| – | MPEP § 802.01 |
| – | MPEP § 806.04 |
| – | MPEP § 806.05 |
| – | MPEP § 806.06 |
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 § 806 — Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions
Source: USPTO806 Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions [R-08.2012]
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
- (A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § 806.06.
- (B) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
- (C) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
- (D) A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic thereto. 37 CFR 1.141, MPEP § 806.04.
Where restriction is required by the Office double patenting cannot be held, and thus, it is imperative the requirement should never be made where related inventions as claimed are not distinct. For (B) and (C) see MPEP § 806.05 – § 806.05(j) and § 809.03. See MPEP § 802.01 for criteria for patentably distinct inventions.