» 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




  • More Guidance on What Software IS and IS NOT Patentable
    In a recent holding of Finjan Holdings, Inc., the Federal Circuit cited to another decision saying that they had previously concluded virus scanning is well-known, an abstract idea, and not patentable.  However, after further review, the Finjan patent  appeared to be claiming a method of operating differently than traditional virus scans that tagged as being previously-identified viruses.  In doing so, the Federal Circuit characterized the Finjan family of patents as using a “behavior-based” approach as compared to a “code-matching” approach of ...
  • Right to Use and Resell Patented Products
    The U.S. Supreme Court in a recent ruling has opined on the rights of a purchaser to use and resell patented products.<br />
    The patent system give the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling the patented invention, for the life of the patent. The right to exclude, however, is subject to the rule of patent exhaustion – upon the sale of a patented product, the patent owner’s patent rights are exhausted and the buyer is ...
  • Trademark Cancellation Proceedings
    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides administrative procedures for contesting the validity of a trademark registration through a procedure known as cancellation proceeding via a “Petition to Cancel” an already registered mark. This procedure is useful to eliminate an interfering trademark registration or to weaken an opponent’s threatening litigation. It is also useful to cancel a mark that perhaps should not have been obtained and is now being cited against your pending application. The cancellation proceeding is essentially a micro-lawsuit within the USPTO and ...

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

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

* indicates required