Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be (37CFR1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse, however, it is recommended not to traverse restriction requirements. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and point out supposed in the restriction requirement, the election shall be as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement WII result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In reply to RR, it must be made by identifying a “Group” of claims even, if applicant transvers. Also traversal should be made with care as it may result in an admission that the identified inventions are not patentably distinct. Non-elected groups can be reserved for the Divisional Applications (DA). DA can be field at any time during pendency of parent.
Commentaires