822 Claims to Inventions That Are Not Patentably Distinct in Plural Applications of Same Applicant or Assignee
MPEP SECTION SUMMARY
 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.
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. |
|
*****
(f) Applications containing patentably indistinct claims. Where two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application.
*****
823 Unity of Invention Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
MPEP SECTION SUMMARY
The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
|
|
