» Patent Lawyer with Brooks Acordia Outlines USPTO Restriction Requirements

Patent Lawyer with Brooks Acordia Outlines USPTO Restriction Requirements

Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) February 4, 2014 – Patent applications that describe more than one invention may face challenges in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Inventors generally pursue separate patents for separate inventions. But when the inventions and their claims are closely related, the inventor may instead pursue a single patent with a single application. As a local patent prosecution attorney explains, that strategy is not always permitted by the USPTO.

“When a USPTO patent examiner determines that a patent application contains claims defining two or more distinct inventions, the office may issue a restriction requirement,” said Simi Valley patent attorney Pejman “PJ” Yedidsion. “The applicant will then be required to choose which invention to pursue in the current application.”

Patents on the remaining invention(s) may then be pursued in one or more divisional patent applications. “Divisionals,” as they are often called, are a type of continuation application. They generally have the same specification, or written description, of an invention and claim the priority date of their parent application, but they contain separate claims.

The Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), Chapter 803, lists two criteria necessary before a restriction requirement may be issued. First, the inventions in the application must be independent or distinct as claimed. Second, the application must present a “serious burden” to the examiner if restriction is not required.

Restriction requirements narrow the scope of the patent application in question. Additionally, they increase the cost in time and fees of obtaining patent protection for all of an inventor’s claims. In some cases, obtaining protection on all claims will prove impractical or infeasible. On the other hand, obtaining separate patents for related inventions may be advantageous in some cases.

“If an inventor presented with a restriction requirement believes that the examiner has failed to establish that a serious burden exists without the restriction, the inventor may contest the requirement on those grounds,” Yedidsion added. “In that case, the counsel of an experienced patent prosecution attorney is essential.”

Brooks Acordia IP Law, P.C.
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. #108
Simi Valley, CA 93065-2827
Phone: (805) 579-2500
Fax: (805) 584-6427

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

  • How the America Invents Act weakens the grace period for disclosure of inventions
    It is crucial for inventors to understand what constitutes prior art in the post-America Invents Act (AIA) era. <br />
    Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), public disclosures are prior art — and therefore preclude the patentability of an invention. Public disclosures include patents, descriptions in printed publications, public use, availability for sale or other availability to the public.<br />
    Prior to the AIA, only domestic disclosures were considered prior art. That geographic limitation no longer exists. The phrase “otherwise available to the public” ...
  • Google Books case illustrates the four factors of fair use
    In November 2013, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin hastened the end of years of legal wrangling over the legality of Google’s scanning and indexing of copyrighted works for its Google Books project. In Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., SDNY, No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), Judge Chin ruled that Google’s work amounted to “fair use” of the books.<br />
    “Fair use” is an exception to a copyright holder’s exclusive right to the use of a protected work. The United States Code ...
  • Speedy Patent Prosecution, Part Four: Patent Prosecution Highway
    The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a program applicable to inventors filing applications for a single invention in multiple nations or jurisdictions. When one or more claims on one such application have been ruled patentable by one participating nation’s patent office, the corresponding claims on applications filed with another participating nation’s office may be fast-tracked.<br />
    For example, an applicant may seek a patent on his invention in both the United States and Canada. If the Canadian Intellectual Property Office allows ...

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required