How does the USPTO define “separately usable” in the context of subcombinations?

The USPTO defines “separately usable” in the context of subcombinations as follows: According to MPEP 806.05(d), “The burden is on the examiner to provide an example to support the determination that the inventions are distinct, but the example need not be documented.” The MPEP further clarifies: “A subcombination is separately usable if it has utility…

Read More

What are the different combinations and subcombinations considered in USPC classification?

The USPC classification system considers various combinations and subcombinations for each type of subject matter. These include: Basic Subject Matter Combined with Feature for Some Additional Purpose: This refers to features added to the basic subject matter that expand its scope beyond the class definition. Basic Subject Matter Combined with Perfecting Feature: These are features…

Read More

What is two-way distinctness in the context of subcombinations usable together?

Two-way distinctness is a crucial concept in determining whether subcombinations usable together can be restricted. According to MPEP 806.05(d): “To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination and claims a combination that requires the particulars of at least one of said subcombinations, both two-way distinctness and…

Read More

How are subcombinations usable together treated in restriction requirements?

Subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination are subject to restriction if they meet specific criteria. According to MPEP § 806.05(j), subcombinations are distinct if: They do not overlap in scope They are not obvious variants At least one subcombination has separate utility Form Paragraph 8.16 is used for restricting between subcombinations and…

Read More

What are subcombinations in the context of patent classification?

In patent classification, subcombinations refer to components or features that can be part of a larger invention or have utility on their own. MPEP 903.02(b) describes two types of subcombinations: Subcombinations Specialized to Basic Subject Matter: The MPEP states, “Each type of basic subject matter may have subcombinations specialized to use therewith; e.g., the crushing…

Read More

How does an examiner determine if there is a serious search and/or examination burden for subcombinations?

An examiner determines if there is a serious search and/or examination burden for subcombinations by considering several factors. According to MPEP 806.05(d): “A serious search burden can be evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search and a serious examination burden can be evidenced by, for example, non-prior art issues relevant to one invention…

Read More

When can a restriction requirement be made between subcombinations?

A restriction requirement between subcombinations can be made when: The subcombinations do not overlap in scope They are not obvious variants At least one subcombination has separate utility There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required As stated in MPEP 806.05(d): “To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately…

Read More