What is the purpose of carefully administering restriction requirements?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-27 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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. The careful administration of restriction requirements serves an important public interest, as stated in MPEP 803.01 : “IT STILL REMAINS IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT NO REQUIREMENT BE MADE WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF TWO PATENTS FOR THE SAME INVENTION.” This practice helps prevent double patenting and ensures that each patent covers a distinct invention, promoting innovation and fair competition. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Final Restriction Requirement Must Be Signed by Examiner with Full Signatory Authority MPEP 803.01 Final Restriction Requires Full Signatory Authority MPEP 803.01 Permitted Obviousness Admission Requires No Restriction MPEP 803 Required Requirement for Showing Serious Search Burden MPEP 803 Permitted Requirement for Showing Non-Prior Art Issues for Separate Inventions MPEP 803 Permitted Requirement for Prima Facie Showing of Serious Search/Examination Burden MPEP 803 Permitted Criteria for Restricting Markush Claims MPEP 803 Restriction Practice for Genus-Species Claims MPEP 803 Claims Must Support Separate Patents and Be Independent or Distinct MPEP 803 Required Merits Examination Required Without Serious Burden MPEP 803 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse Can examiners with partial signatory authority issue restriction requirements? What is the legal basis for restriction requirements in patent applications? How does the USPTO protect applicants from improper restriction requirements? Who can sign final Office actions containing a final requirement for restriction? No Additional FAQs