Can a broad allegation of error satisfy the requirement for a complete reply to a restriction requirement?
No, a broad allegation of error is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a complete reply to a restriction requirement. The MPEP 818.01(a) clearly states: “A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111.” To provide a complete reply, the applicant must specifically…
Read MoreWhat is the distinction between an apparatus and a product made by the apparatus?
An apparatus and a product made by the apparatus can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) The apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make another materially different product; or…
Read MoreWhat happens if the linking claim is found allowable in a restriction requirement?
If the linking claim is found allowable, the restriction requirement must be withdrawn. The MPEP Section 818.01(d) clearly states: “If the Office allows the linking claim, the restriction requirement must be withdrawn and claims to all linked inventions that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable linking claim must be acted…
Read MoreWhat happens if I add claims for a different invention after receiving an Office action?
If you add claims for a different invention after receiving an Office action, the examiner will likely require you to restrict the claims to the previously claimed invention. This is outlined in 37 CFR 1.145, which states: “If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from…
Read MoreHow does 37 CFR 1.141(b) relate to restriction requirements in patent applications?
37 CFR 1.141(b) is a regulation that specifically addresses restriction requirements in patent applications containing claims to multiple categories of inventions. The MPEP 806.05(i) references this regulation: “37 CFR 1.141 Different inventions in one national application. ***** (b) Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of 35 U.S.C. 121 in relation to double patenting?
The purpose of 35 U.S.C. 121 is to protect inventors from double patenting rejections that might arise due to administrative requirements imposed by the USPTO. As explained in the MPEP, citing Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials: “[W]hen the existence of multiple patents is due to the administrative requirements imposed by the Patent and…
Read MoreCan a patent application be abandoned due to an insufficient reply to a restriction requirement?
Can a patent application be abandoned due to an insufficient reply to a restriction requirement? Yes, a patent application can be abandoned if the applicant provides an insufficient reply to a restriction requirement. The MPEP 711.02(a) states: “Failure to elect species, in response to a restriction requirement, may also result in abandonment.” This means that…
Read MoreHow long is the shortened statutory period for replying to a restriction requirement?
According to MPEP 710.02(b), the shortened statutory period for replying to a restriction requirement or election of species (with no action on the merits) is 2 months. The MPEP states: 2 MONTHS (A) Requirement for restriction or election of species only (no action on the merits) …… MPEP §§ 809.02(a) and 817. This period allows…
Read MoreHow are claims handled after a restriction requirement or election of species?
Claims retained after a restriction requirement or election of species are treated according to specific procedures outlined in the MPEP. As stated in MPEP 707.07(i): Claims retained after a restriction requirement (37 CFR 1.142) or election of species requirement (37 CFR 1.146) should be treated as set out in MPEP §§ 821 to 821.04(b). This…
Read MoreHow does a divisional application differ from other continuing applications?
How does a divisional application differ from other continuing applications? A divisional application is a unique type of continuing application that focuses on a distinct invention separated from a parent application. According to the MPEP: A divisional application is one filed for an invention which has been disclosed and claimed, but not allowed, in a…
Read More