What is the significance of linking claims in a restriction requirement?

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.

Linking claims play a crucial role in restriction requirements, as they can affect the scope of examination and potential rejoinder of non-elected inventions. According to MPEP 817, examiners must account for linking claims when issuing a restriction requirement:

“(B) Take into account claims not grouped, indicating their disposition.
(1) Linking claims
(i) Identify
(ii) Statement of groups to which linking claims may be assigned for examination”

Linking claims are those that, if found allowable, would require rejoinder of the otherwise non-elected inventions. They effectively ‘link’ different invention groups together. The examiner must identify these claims and indicate which groups they may be assigned to for examination purposes.

The significance of linking claims lies in their potential to broaden the scope of examination and preserve the applicant’s rights to pursue related inventions. If a linking claim is found allowable, it can lead to the rejoinder and examination of previously non-elected inventions, potentially resulting in broader patent coverage for the applicant.