809.03 Restriction Between Linked Inventions [R-07.2022]

Created On
byChhabra Law Firm

Where an application includes two or more otherwise properly divisible inventions that are linked by a claim which, if allowable, would require rejoinder (See MPEP § 809 and § 821.04), the examiner should require restriction, either by a written Office action that includes only a restriction requirement or by a telephoned requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged). Examiners should use form paragraph 8.12 to make restrictions involving linking claims when the linking claim is other than a genus claim linking species inventions. When the linking claim is a genus claim linking species inventions, examiners should use form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 (see MPEP § 809.02(a)).

¶ 8.12 Restriction, Linking Claims

Claim [1] link(s) inventions [2] and [3]. The restriction requirement [4] the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim(s), claim [5]. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.

Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.

Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.

Examiner Note:

  • 1. This form paragraph must be included in any restriction requirement with at least one linking claim present.
  • 2. In bracket 4, insert either –between– or –among–.
  • 3. In bracket 5, insert the claim number(s) of the linking claims.
  • 4. See related form paragraphs 8.45, 8.46 and 8.47.

Where the requirement for restriction in an application is predicated upon the nonallowability of generic or other type of linking claims, applicant is entitled to retain in the application claims to the nonelected invention or inventions.

For traverse of a restriction requirement with linking claims, see MPEP § 818.01(d).

For treatment of claims held to be drawn to nonelected inventions, see MPEP § 821et seq.