How are non-interfering claims handled in applications going into interference?

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based)BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

MPEP 2303 addresses the handling of non-interfering claims in applications going into interference:

Leaving a non-interfering claim in an application going into an interference creates an unwarranted delay in the issuance of claims to the non-interfering subject matter. As far as the public and the Office are concerned, there is no justification for not issuing the non-interfering claims promptly.

To address this, the MPEP suggests that if an application contains both interfering and non-interfering claims, a restriction requirement should be made between the two. This allows for the prompt issuance of non-interfering claims while the interfering claims proceed through the interference process.

Topics: MPEP 2300 - Interference And Derivation Proceedings MPEP 2303 - Completion Of Examination Patent Law Patent Procedure
Tags: Aia Practice, Contested Case Jurisdiction, Interference Declaration, judicial review, Restriction Requirement