| Patents > Search Colections > MPEP > 803 Restriction - When Proper [R-3] - 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting |
|
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
803 Restriction - When Proper [R-3] - 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
803 Restriction - When Proper [R-3]
Under the statute>, the claims of< an application may properly be required to be restricted to one of two or more claimed inventions only if they are able to support separate patents and they are either independent (MPEP § **> 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01<) or distinct ( MPEP § 806.05 - § *>806.05(j)<).
If the search and examination of **>all the claims in an< application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine *>them< on the merits, even though **>they include< claims to independent or distinct inventions.
>
I. < CRITERIA FOR RESTRICTION BETWEEN PATENTABLY DISTINCT INVENTIONS
There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:
(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § *>806.06<, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § *>806.05(j)<); and
(B) There *>would< be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is >not< required (see MPEP § 803.02, **> § 808<, and § 808.02).
>
II. < GUIDELINES
Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.
Where plural inventions are capable of being viewed as related in two ways, both applicable criteria for distinctness must be demonstrated to support a restriction requirement.
If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions *>would have been< obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm'r Pat. 1978).
For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown ** by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush-type claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP § *>806.04< - § 806.04(i) and § 808.01(a).
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)