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 § 2147 for the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(b) to biotechnological processes and compositions of matter.
See MPEP § 2116.01 for guidance on the treatment of process claims which make or use a novel, nonobvious product.
Upon rejoinder of a nonelected invention, the assigned examiner should reconsider whether the C* classification picture is correct. If the assigned examiner believes that the C* classification picture is incorrect, the examiner should enter a C* classification challenge at the time of rejoinder
Where restriction was required between independent or distinct products, or between independent or distinct processes, and all claims directed to an elected invention are allowable, the examiner should withdraw any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. For example, a requirement for restriction should be withdrawn when a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim is allowable and any previously withdrawn claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations thereof. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim remain withdrawn from consideration. However, in view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, if any claim presented in a divisional application includes all the limitations of a claim that is allowable in the parent application, such claim may be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Additionally, a patentably indistinct claim in a child application would be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application when the child application is a continuation or continuation-in-part application or is a divisional application without consonance. The prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 is limited to divisional applications with consonance. See MPEP § 804.01
An amendment presenting additional claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable 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.
When all claims to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, applicant must be advised that claims drawn to the nonelected invention have been rejoined and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn in its entirety. Form paragraph 8.45 may be used.
Claim [1] allowable. Claim [2 ], previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement [4] inventions [5], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [6], is hereby withdrawn and claim [7] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
1. Where the elected invention is directed to a product and previously nonelected process claims are rejoined, form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this paragraph.
2. This form paragraph should be used whenever ALL previously withdrawn claims depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim (e.g., a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim) and wherein the non-elected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
3. In bracket 2, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
4. In bracket 3 insert-- requires-- or -- require--.
5. In bracket 4, insert either --between-- or --among--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) being rejoined.
7. In bracket 7, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either --is-- or --are--.
When no claims directed to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, form paragraph 8.49 should be used to explain why all nonelected claims are still withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [3], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claim(s) do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when none of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim and wherein the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 3, insert the date of the restriction requirement being maintained.
Note that each additional invention is considered separately. When claims to one nonelected invention depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, and claims to another nonelected invention do not, applicant must be advised as to which claims have been rejoined and which claims remain withdrawn from further consideration. Form paragraph 8.50 may be used.
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [3], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5]. Claim [6], directed to [7] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [8], directed to [9] withdrawn from consideration because [10] require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a 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.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when some, but not all, of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim and wherein the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in its entirety. Use form paragraph 8.49 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is maintained without modification.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 4, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
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.
6. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
7. In bracket 9, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
8. In bracket 10, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
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 8.47 must be used.
Where the application claims an allowable invention and discloses but does not claim an additional invention that depends on or otherwise requires all the limitations of the allowable claim, applicant may add claims directed to such additional invention by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312; amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.
Form paragraph 8.46 (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 if appropriate) must be used to notify applicant when nonelected claim(s) which depended from or required all the limitations of an allowable claim were canceled by applicant and may be reinstated by submitting the claim(s) in an amendment.
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in a timely filed amendment in reply to this action. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. If no issues remain outstanding and application is otherwise ready for allowance, use form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
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.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in an amendment, limited to the addition of such claim(s), filed within a time period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. If NO such amendment is submitted within the set time period, the application will be passed to issue. PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS OTHERWISE CLOSED.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has not been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). After final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
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.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). Before final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.50 when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
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.
If the election is traversed, an additional paragraph worded as form paragraph 8.03 should be added to the holding.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on [2]. 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.
The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.
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 [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2], directed to the process of making or using the allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim [4], directed to the invention(s) of [5] require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and [6] NOT been rejoined.
Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement [7] groups [8] as set forth in the Office action mailed on [9] 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 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2] , directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] 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 [4] 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 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.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
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).
*****
*****
Where claims in two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee are patentably indistinct, a complete examination should be made of the claims of each application and all appropriate rejections should be entered in each application, including rejections based upon prior art. The claims of each application may also be rejected on the grounds of provisional double patenting based on the claims of the other application whether or not any claims avoid the prior art. Where appropriate, the same prior art may be relied upon in each of the applications. See also MPEP § 804.01.
The provisional double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner in each application as long as there are patentably indistinct claims in more than one application unless that provisional double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in one of the applications. See MPEP § 1490 when the provisional double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in at least one application.
See MPEP § 804.03 for conflicting subject matter, different inventors, common ownership.
See MPEP § 608.01(m) for rejection of one claim over another in the same application.
See MPEP § 2190, subsection II, for res judicata.
See MPEP § 709.01 for one application in interference.
See MPEP § 806.04(h) to § 806.04(i) for species and genus in separate applications.
Wherever appropriate, such conflicting claims should be moved to a single application. This is particularly true where the two or more applications are due to, and consonant with, a requirement to restrict which the examiner now consi
