Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:58:17+00:00

Document:
(A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § 806.06.
(B) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
(C) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
(D) A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic thereto. 37 CFR 1.141, MPEP § 806.04.
Where restriction is required by the Office double patenting cannot be held, and thus, it is imperative the requirement should never be made where related inventions as claimed are not distinct. For (B) and (C) see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j) and § 809.03. See MPEP § 802.01 for criteria for patentably distinct inventions.
In passing upon questions of double patenting and restriction, it is the claimed subject matter that is considered and such claimed subject matter must be compared in order to determine the question of distinctness or independence. However, a provisional election of a single species may be required where only generic claims are presented and the generic claims recite such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search is necessary. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 808.01(a).
Where the claims of an application define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment of an invention, restriction therebetween should never be required. This is because the claims are not directed to distinct inventions; rather they are different definitions of the same disclosed subject matter, varying in breadth or scope of definition.
Where such claims are voluntarily presented in different applications having at least one common inventor or a common assignee (i.e., no restriction requirement was made by the Office), disclosing the same embodiments, see MPEP § 804 - § 804.02.
Where an application includes claims directed to different embodiments or species that could fall within the scope of a generic claim, restriction between the species may be proper if the species are independent or distinct. However, 37 CFR 1.141 provides that an allowable generic claim may link a reasonable number of species embraced thereby. The practice is set forth in 37 CFR 1.146.
37 CFR 1.146 Election of species.
In the first action on an application containing a generic claim to a generic invention (genus) and claims to more than one patentably distinct species embraced thereby, the examiner may require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect a species of his or her invention to which his or her claim will be restricted if no claim to the genus is found to be allowable. However, if such application contains claims directed to more than a reasonable number of species, the examiner may require restriction of the claims to not more than a reasonable number of species before taking further action in the application.
See MPEP § 806.04(d) for the definition of a generic claim, and MPEP § 806.04(e) for a discussion of claims that include one or more species.
Species may be either independent or related under the particular disclosure. Where species under a claimed genus are not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure, the species are independent inventions. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. Where inventions as disclosed and claimed are both (A) species under a claimed genus and (B) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to other types of restrictions such as those covered in MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j). If restriction is improper under either practice, it should not be required.
For example, two different subcombinations usable with each other may each be a species of some common generic invention. If so, restriction practice under election of species and the practice applicable to restriction between combination and subcombinations must be addressed.
As a further example, species of carbon compounds may be related to each other as intermediate and final product. Thus, these species are not independent and in order to sustain a restriction requirement, distinctness must be shown. Distinctness is proven if the intermediate and final products do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants and it can be shown that the intermediate product is useful other than to make the final product. Otherwise, the disclosed relationship would preclude their being issued in separate patents. See MPEP § 806.05(j) for restriction practice pertaining to related products, including intermediate-final product relationships.
In an application presenting three species illustrated, for example, in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively, a generic claim should read on each of these views; but the fact that a claim does so read is not conclusive that it is generic. It may define only an element or subcombination common to the several species.
In general, a generic claim should require no material element additional to those required by the species claims, and each of the species claims must require all the limitations of the generic claim.
Once a generic claim is allowable, all of the claims drawn to species in addition to the elected species which require all the limitations of the generic claim will ordinarily be allowable over the prior art in view of the allowability of the generic claim, since the additional species will depend thereon or otherwise require all of the limitations thereof. When all or some of the claims directed to one of the species in addition to the elected species do not require all the limitations of the generic claim, see MPEP § 821.04(a).
Claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species. The scope of a claim may be limited to a single disclosed embodiment (i.e., a single species, and thus be designated a specific species claim). Alternatively, a claim may encompass two or more of the disclosed embodiments (and thus be designated a generic or genus claim).
Species always refer to the different embodiments of the invention.
Species may be either independent or related as disclosed (see MPEP § 806.04 and § 806.04(b)).
Where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope.
In making a requirement for restriction in an application claiming plural species, the examiner should group together species considered clearly unpatentable over each other.
Where generic claims are allowable, applicant may claim in the same application additional species as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. See MPEP § 806.04. Where an applicant files a divisional application claiming a species previously claimed but nonelected in the parent case pursuant to and consonant with a requirement to restrict a double patenting rejection of the species claim(s) would be prohibited under 35 U.S.C. 121. See MPEP § 821.04(a) for rejoinder of species claims when a generic claim is allowable.
Where, however, claims to a different species, or a species disclosed but not claimed in a parent case as filed and first acted upon by the examiner, are voluntarily presented in a different application having at least one common inventor or a common assignee (i.e., no requirement for election pertaining to said species was made by the Office) there should be close investigation to determine whether a double patenting rejection would be appropriate. See MPEP § 804.01 and § 804.02.
If a generic claim is presented in a separate application after the issuance of a patent claiming one or more species within the scope of the generic claim, the Office may reject the generic claim on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting when the patent and application have at least one common inventor and/or are either (1) commonly assigned/owned or (2) non-commonly assigned/owned but subject to a joint research agreement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3). See MPEP § 804. Applicant may overcome such a rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2016 (Fed. Cir. 1993);In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967).
Where two or more related inventions are claimed, the principal question to be determined in connection with a requirement to restrict or a rejection on the ground of double patenting is whether or not the inventions as claimed are distinct. If they are distinct, restriction may be proper. If they are not distinct, restriction is never proper. If nondistinct inventions are claimed in separate applications or patents, double patenting must be held, except where the additional applications were filed consonant with a requirement to restrict.
A combination is an organization of which a subcombination or element is a part.
Where a combination as claimed requires the details of a subcombination as separately claimed, there is usually no evidence that combination ABsp is patentable without the details of Bsp. The inventions are not distinct and a requirement for restriction must not be made or maintained, even if the subcombination has separate utility. This situation can be diagrammed as combination ABsp (“sp” is an abbreviation for “specific”), and subcombination Bsp. Thus the specific characteristics required by the subcombination claim Bsp are also required by the combination claim. See MPEP § 806.05(d) for situations where two or more subcombinations are separately claimed.
This situation can be diagramed as combination ABbr (“br” is an abbreviation for “broad”), and subcombination Bsp (“sp” is an abbreviation for “specific”). Bbr indicates that in the combination the subcombination is broadly recited and that the specific characteristics required by the subcombination claim Bsp are not required by the combination claim.
Two or more claimed subcombinations, disclosed as usable together in a single combination, and which can be shown to be separately usable, are usually restrictable when the subcombinations do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants.
See MPEP § 806.05(c). Furthermore, restriction is only proper when there would be a serious burden if restriction were not required, as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search.
Where claims to two or more subcombinations are presented along with a claim to a combination that includes the particulars of at least two subcombinations, the presence of the claim to the second subcombination is evidence that the details of the first subcombination are not required for patentability (and vice versa). For example, if an application claims ABC/B/C wherein ABC is a combination claim and B and C are each subcombinations that are properly restrictable from each other, the presence of a claim to C provides evidence that the details of B are not required for the patentability of combination ABC.
Upon determining that all claims directed to an elected combination invention are allowable, the examiner must reconsider the propriety of the restriction requirement. Where the combination is allowable in view of the patentability of at least one of the subcombinations, the restriction requirement between the elected combination and patentable subcombination(s) will be withdrawn; furthermore, any subcombinations that were searched and determined to be allowable must also be rejoined. If a subcombination is elected and determined to be allowable, nonelected claims requiring all the limitations of the allowable claim will be rejoined in accordance with MPEP § 821.04.
Form paragraph 8.16 may be used in restriction requirements between subcombinations.
The examiner must show, by way of example, that one of the subcombinations has utility other than in the disclosed combination.
Care must be taken to determine if the subcombinations are generically claimed.
Where subcombinations as disclosed and claimed are both (a) species under a claimed genus and (b) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to related inventions. If restriction is improper under either practice, it should not be required (MPEP § 806.04(b)).
If applicant proves or provides an argument, supported by facts, that the other use, suggested by the examiner, cannot be accomplished or is not reasonable, the burden is on the examiner to document a viable alternative use or withdraw the requirement.
Process and apparatus for its practice can be shown to be distinct inventions, if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand; or (B) that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process.
Form paragraph 8.17 may be used to make restriction requirements between process and apparatus.
Inventions  and  are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case .
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both a process and apparatus for its practice (MPEP § 806.05(e)).
--the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as......--.
3. A process can be practiced by hand if it can be performed without using any apparatus.
5. All restriction requirements between a process and an apparatus (or product) for practicing the process should be followed by form paragraph 8.21.04 to notify the applicant that if an apparatus claim is found allowable, process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable apparatus may be rejoined.
The burden is on the examiner to provide reasonable examples that recite material differences.
If applicant proves or provides convincing argument that there is no material difference or that a process cannot be performed by hand (if examiner so argued), the burden is on the examiner to document another materially different process or apparatus or withdraw the requirement.
--the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process such as......--.
An apparatus and a product made by the apparatus can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make another materially different product; or (B) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus.
Form paragraph 8.19 may be used for restriction requirements between apparatus and product made.
Inventions  and  are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case .
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both the apparatus and product made (MPEP § 806.05(g)).
--the product can be made by a materially different apparatus such as......--.
3. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
The examiner must show by way of example either (A) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (B) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus.
The burden is on the examiner to provide an example, but the example need not be documented.
If applicant either proves or provides convincing argument that the alternative example suggested by the examiner is not workable, the burden is on the examiner to suggest another viable example or withdraw the restriction requirement.
A product and a process of using the product can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) the process of using as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product; or (B) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process.
If the applicant either proves or provides a convincing argument that the alternative use suggested by the examiner cannot be accomplished, the burden is on the examiner to support a viable alternative use or withdraw the requirement.
Form paragraphs 8.20 and 8.21.04 should be used in restriction requirements between the product and method of using.
Inventions  and  are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case .
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both the product and process of using the product (MPEP § 806.05(h). If claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from) making the product are also presented such process of making claims should be grouped with the product invention. See MPEP § 806.05(i).
--the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as......--.
4. All restriction requirements between a product and a process of using the product should be followed by form paragraph 8.21.04 to notify the applicant that if a product claim is found allowable, process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product may be rejoined.
37 CFR 1.141 Different inventions in one national application.
(b) Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in a national application, a three way requirement for restriction can only be made where the process of making is distinct from the product. If the process of making and the product are not distinct, the process of using may be joined with the claims directed to the product and the process of making the product even though a showing of distinctness between the product and process of using the product can be made.
Where an application contains claims to a product, claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from, as defined in MPEP § 806.05(f)) making the product, and claims to a process of using the product, applicant may be required to elect either (A) the product and process of making it; or (B) the process of using. If the examiner cannot make a showing of distinctness between the process of using and the product (MPEP § 806.05(h)), restriction cannot be required.
Form paragraph 8.20 (See MPEP § 806.05(h)) may be used in product, process of making and process of using situations where the product cannot be restricted from the process of making the product.
See MPEP § 821.04(b) for rejoinder practice pertaining to product and process inventions.
(A) Two different combinations, not disclosed as capable of use together, having different modes of operation, different functions and different effects are independent. An article of apparel and a locomotive bearing would be an example. A process of painting a house and a process of boring a well would be a second example.
(B) Where the two inventions are process and apparatus, and the apparatus cannot be used to practice the process or any part thereof, they are independent. A specific process of molding is independent from a molding apparatus that cannot be used to practice the specific process.
Form paragraph 8.20.02 may be used to restrict between independent, unrelated inventions. Form paragraph 8.20.03 may be used to restrict between an unrelated product and process.
Inventions  and  are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together, and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects. (MPEP § 802.01 and MPEP § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions  .
1. This form paragraph is to be used only when claims are presented to unrelated inventions, e. g., a necktie and a locomotive bearing not disclosed as capable of use together.
2. In bracket 3, insert reasons for concluding that the inventions are unrelated.
3. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 8.21.
Inventions  and  are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case,  .
1. In bracket 3, insert reasons for concluding that the inventions are unrelated.
2. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 8.21.

References: § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 809
 § 802
 § 803
 § 808
 § 804
 § 804
 § 806
 § 806
 § 802
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 804
 § 804
 § 804
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 806
 § 821
 § 802
 § 806
 § 802
 § 806