{"id":1036,"date":"2022-02-03T20:18:34","date_gmt":"2022-02-03T20:18:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/?page_id=1036"},"modified":"2022-02-03T20:18:35","modified_gmt":"2022-02-03T20:18:35","slug":"what-is-restriction-practice","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/resources\/patent-prosecution\/what-is-restriction-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"What is Restriction Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n
\n\t\t\tHome<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tResources<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tPatent Prosecution<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tWhat is Restriction Practice\n\t\t<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n

What is Restriction Practice<\/a>?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Under the MPEP, 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 \u00a7 802.01, \u00a7 806.06, and \u00a7 808.01) or distinct (MPEP \u00a7 806.05 – \u00a7 806.05(j)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. CRITERIA FOR RESTRICTION BETWEEN PATENTABLY DISTINCT INVENTIONS<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP \u00a7 802.01, \u00a7 806.06, \u00a7 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP \u00a7 806.05 – \u00a7 806.05(j)); and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(B) There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP \u00a7 803.02, \u00a7 808, and \u00a7 808.02).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. GUIDELINES<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Examiners must provide reasons and\/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019r Pat. 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u00a7 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 claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP \u00a7 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP \u00a7 806.04 – \u00a7 806.04(i) and \u00a7 808.01(a).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What is Restriction Practice? Under the MPEP, 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 \u00a7 802.01, \u00a7 806.06, and \u00a7 808.01) or distinct (MPEP \u00a7 806.05 – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":965,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1036","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1036"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1036\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1064,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1036\/revisions\/1064"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/965"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}