The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

1504.05 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Form paragraph 15.29 or 15.30, if appropriate, may
be used to make a restriction requirement.
'ff 15.29 Restriction Under 35 u.s.c. 121 (Segregable
Parts or Combination/Subcombination)
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].
Embodiment 2 - Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].
[5]
Restriction to one of the following inventions is.required under
35 U.S.c. 121:
Gronp I - Embodiment [6]
Gronp II - Embodiment [7]
[8]
The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since
under the law a design patent covers only. the invention disclosed
as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable
parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply
for separate patents. See Ex parte Sanford, 1914 CD 69, 204 OG
1346 (Comm'r Pat. 1914); and Blumcraftof Pittsburgh v. Ladd,
144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965). It is further noted that patentably
distinct combinationlsubcombination subject matter must be supported
by separate claims, whereas only a single claim is pennissible
in a design patent application. See In re Rubinfield. 270 F.2d
391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).
[9J
Because the designs are distinct for the reason(s) given above,
and have acquired separate status in the art, restriction for examination
purposes as indicated is proper (35 U.S.C. 121).
A reply to this requirement must include an election of a single
group for prosecution on the merits, even if this requirement is
traversed. 37 CPR 1.143. Any reply that does notinclude an election
of a single groupwill be held nonresponsive. Applicant is
also requested to direct cancellation of all drawing figures and the
corresponding descriptions which are directed to the nonelected
groups.
Should applicant traverse this requirement on the grounds that
the groups are not patentably distinct, applicant should present
evidence or identify such evidence now of record 'showing the
groups to be obvious variations of one another. If the groups·are
determined not to be patentably distinct and they remain in this
application, any rejection of one group over the prior art will
apply equally to all other groups. See Exparte AppeaiNo. 315-40,
152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability
based on the differences between the groups will be considered
once the groups have been determined to comprise a single inventive
concept.
In view of the above requirement, action on the merits is
deferred pending compliance with the requirement in accordance
with Ex parte Heckman, 135 USPQ 229 (P.O. Super. Exam.
1960).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
2. In bracket 8, add groups as necessary.
3. In bracket 9, add comments, if necessary.
August2001
1500-38
'ff 15.30 Telephone Restriction Under 35 U.S,c. 121
(Segregable Parts or Combination/Subcombination)
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1] drawn to a [21.
Embodiment 2 - Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].
[5]
Restriction toone of the following inventions is required under
35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I - Embodiment [6]
Group II - Embodiment [7]
[8]
The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since
underthe law a design patent covers only the invention disclosed
as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable
parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply
for separate patents. See Ex parte Sanford, 1914 CD 69, 204 OG
1346 (Comm'r Pat. 1914); and Blumcraftof Pittsburgh v. Ladd,
144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965). It is further noted that patentably
distinct combinationlsubcombirtation subject matter must be supported
by separate claims, whereas onlya single claim is permissible
in a design patent application. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d
391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).
[9]
During a telephone discussion with [10] on [11], a provisional
election was made [12Jtraverse to prosecute the invention of
Group [13]. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant
in replying tothis Office action.
Group [14] withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner,
37 CFR 1.l42(b) as being for a nonelected invention.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
2. In bracket 8; add groups as necessary.
3. In bracket 9, insert additional comments, if necessary:
Form paragraph 15.27.06 or 15.27.07, if appropriate,
may be used to notify applicant that restriction is
not required because the designs are not patentably
distinct.
'ff 15.27,06 Restriction Not Required (Change in
Appearance and Scope - First ActionNon Issue)
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1- Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].
Embodiment 2 - Figs, [3] drawn to a [4].
[5]
Embodiments [6] involve a difference in appearance. Multiple
embodiments of a single inventive conceptmay be included in the
same design application only ifthey are patentably indistinct. In
re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).
Embodimentsthat are patentably distinct from one another do not
constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included
in the same design application. In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222
(Comm'r Pat. 1967).
Embodimeilt(s)[7] directed to the corilbination(s) in relation to
Embodiment(s) [8] directed to the subcombination(s)/element(s).
Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the