Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s821.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:14:25+00:00

Document:
Claims found to be drawn to nonelected inventions, including claims drawn to nonelected species or inventions that may be eligible for rejoinder, are treated as indicated in MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. The examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention. Applicant may traverse the requirement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.143. If a final requirement for restriction is made by the examiner, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement if the applicant made a timely traversal. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971).
Where the initial requirement is traversed, the examiner should reconsider it. If, upon reconsideration, the examiner is still of the opinion that restriction is proper, the examiner should maintain the restriction requirement and make it final in the next Office action. See MPEP § 803.01. In doing so, the examiner should reply to the reasons or arguments advanced by applicant in the traverse. Form paragraph 8.25 should be used to make a restriction requirement final.
Applicant’s election with traverse of  in the reply filed on  is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that . This is not found persuasive because .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
1. In bracket 1, insert the invention elected.
2. In bracket 3, insert in summary form, the ground(s) on which traversal is based.
3. In bracket 4, insert the reasons why the traversal was not found to be persuasive.
If the requirement is made final, the claims to the nonelected invention should be clearly indicated as being withdrawn from consideration. In this situation, the examiner should use form paragraph 8.05.
Claim  withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on .
In bracket 2, insert --invention-- or --species--.
This form paragraph will show that applicant has retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144. See MPEP § 818.01(c).
If the examiner, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion that the requirement for restriction is improper in whole or in part, he or she should clearly state in the next Office action that the requirement for restriction is withdrawn in whole or in part, specify which groups have been reinstated, and give an action on the merits of all the claims directed to the elected invention and any invention reinstated with the elected invention.
When the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the examiner should contact applicant and advise him or her of his or her options with regard to any pending claims withdrawn from consideration. Alternatively, applicant may be notified using form paragraph 8.03.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim  directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on . Applicant is given TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.
See also MPEP § 821.04 for rejoinder of certain nonelected inventions when the claims to the elected invention are allowable.
When preparing a final action in an application where there has been a traversal of a requirement for restriction, the examiner should indicate in the Office action which claims, if any, remain withdrawn from consideration.
Note that the petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed not later than appeal. This is construed to mean on or before the date the notice of appeal is filed. See MPEP § 1204. If the application is ready for allowance on or after the date of the notice of appeal and no petition has been filed, the examiner should simply cancel nonelected claims that are not eligible for rejoinder by examiner’s amendment, calling attention to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.144.
Where the initial requirement is not traversed (either expressly or by virtue of an incomplete reply), the examiner should take appropriate action on the elected claims including determining whether the restriction requirement should be withdrawn in whole or in part. See MPEP § 821.04. Form paragraphs 8.25.01 or 8.25.02 should be used by the examiner to acknowledge the election without traverse.
Applicant’s election without traverse of  in the reply filed on  is acknowledged.
Claims to the nonelected invention should be treated by using form paragraph 8.06.
Claim  withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on .
In bracket 2, insert --invention--, or --species--.
This form paragraph will show that applicant has not retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144.
When applicant has not retained the right to petition the restriction requirement and the application is otherwise ready for allowance, the claims to the nonelected invention, except for claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions eligible for rejoinder, may be canceled by an examiner’s amendment, and the application passed to issue.
The examiner should use form paragraph 8.07 in this situation.
See also MPEP § 821.01 and § 821.04et seq.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim  directed to  nonelected without traverse. Accordingly, claim  been canceled.
In bracket 2, insert --an invention--, --inventions--, --a species--, or --species--.
Note that even if an election was made without traverse, claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions that are eligible for rejoinder should be rejoined; if not rejoined, such claims may only be cancelled by examiner’s amendment when the cancellation is expressly authorized by applicant.
37 CFR 1.145 Subsequent presentation of claims for different invention.
The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Rejoinder involves withdrawal of a restriction requirement between an allowable elected invention and a nonelected invention and examination of the formerly nonelected invention on the merits.
Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.
Where applicant voluntarily presents claims to the product and process, for example, in separate applications (i.e., no restriction requirement was made by the Office), and one of the applications issues as a patent, the remaining application may be rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, where appropriate (see MPEP § 804 - § 804.03), and applicant may overcome the rejection by the filing of a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c) where appropriate. Similarly, if copending applications separately present product and process claims, provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections should be made where appropriate. However, once a determination as to the patentability of the product has been reached any process claim directed to making or using an allowable product should not be rejected over prior art without consultation with a Technology Center Director.
See MPEP § 2116.01 for guidance on the treatment of process claims which make or use a novel, nonobvious product.
5. In bracket 5, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
9. If all of the claims are in proper form, i.e., they include all the limitations of an allowable claim, one of form paragraphs 8.45, 8.46 or 8.47must be used.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
Where claims directed to a product and to a process of making and/or using the product are presented in the same application, applicant may be called upon under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect claims to either the product or a process. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h). The claims to the nonelected invention will be withdrawn from further consideration under 37 CFR 1.142. See MPEP § 821 through § 821.03. However, if applicant elects a claim(s) directed to a product which is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. Upon rejoinder of claims directed to a previously nonelected process invention, the restriction requirement between the elected product and rejoined process(es) will be withdrawn.
If applicant cancels all the claims directed to a nonelected process invention before rejoinder occurs, the examiner should not withdraw the restriction requirement. This will preserve applicant’s rights under 35 U.S.C. 121.
Where the application as originally filed discloses the product and the process for making and/or using the product, and only claims directed to the product are presented for examination, applicant may present claims directed to the process of making and/or using the allowable product by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. In view of the rejoinder procedure, and in order to expedite prosecution, applicants are encouraged to present such process claims, preferably as dependent claims, in the application at an early stage of prosecution. Process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. However, if applicant files an amendment adding claims to a process invention, and the amendment includes process claims which do not depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product, all claims directed to that newly added invention may be withdrawn from consideration, via an election by original presentation (see MPEP § 821.03).
Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312. Amendments to add only process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed product claim and which meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112 may be entered.
Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116. When all claims to the elected product are in condition for allowance, all process claims eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP § 821.04) must be considered for patentability.
If an amendment after final rejection that otherwise complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116 would place all the elected product claim(s) in condition for allowance and thereby require rejoinder of process claims that raise new issues requiring further consideration (e.g., issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph), the amendment could be denied entry. For example, if pending nonelected process claims depend from a finally rejected product claim, and the amendment (or affidavit or other evidence that could have been submitted earlier) submitted after final rejection, if entered, would put the product claim(s) in condition for allowance, entry of the amendment (or evidence submission) would not be required if it would raise new issues that would require further consideration, such as issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph necessitated by rejoinder of previously nonelected process claims.
Before mailing an advisory action in the above situation, it is recommended that applicant be called and given the opportunity to cancel the process claims to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims, or to file an RCE to continue prosecution of the process claims in the same application as the product claims.
In after final situations when no amendment or evidence is submitted, but applicant submits arguments that persuade the examiner that all the product claims are allowable, in effect the final rejection of the product claims is not sustainable, and any rejection of the rejoined process claims must be done in a new Office action. If the process claims would be rejected, applicant may be called before mailing a new Office action and given the opportunity to cancel the process claims and to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims. If a new Office action is prepared indicating the allowability of the product claim and including a new rejection of the process claims, the provisions of MPEP § 706.07 govern the propriety of making the Office action final.
Form paragraph 8.21.04 should be included in any requirement for restriction between a product and a process of making or process of using the product. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h).
Form paragraph 8.42 or 8.43 should be used to notify applicant of the rejoinder of process inventions which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim.
Claim  directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim , directed to the process of making or using the allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement,  hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim , directed to the invention(s) of  require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and  NOT been rejoined.
Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement  groups  as set forth in the Office action mailed on  is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
1. If ALL previously withdrawn process claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claims followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of ALL the rejoined process claims.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
5. In bracket 4, insert the number(s) of the claims NOT being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s) or subject matter of the invention(s) to which the claims NOT being rejoined are directed, followed by either --, do not all-- or --, does not--.
7. In bracket 6, insert --has-- or --have--.
8. In bracket 7, insert either -- among -- or -- between--.
9. In bracket 8, insert group numbers of the elected product and rejoined process.
Claim  directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim  , directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement,  hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on  is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
1. If LESS THAN ALL previously withdrawn claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.42 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of the process claim(s) previously withdrawn from consideration.
5. If rejoinder occurs after the first Office action on the merits and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable, e.g., if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, then the next Office action may be made final if proper under MPEP § 706.07(a).

References: § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 803
 § 818
 § 821
 § 1204
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 804
 § 804
 § 2116
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 706
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 821
 § 706