Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
822 Claims to Inventions That Are Not Distinct in Plural Applications of Same Inventive Entity - 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
822 Claims to Inventions That Are Not Distinct in Plural Applications of Same Inventive Entity
The treatment of plural applications of the same inventive entity, none of which has become a patent, is treated in 37 CFR 1.78(b) as follows:
(b) Where two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain conflicting 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.
See MPEP § 804.03 for conflicting subject matter, different inventors, common ownership.
See MPEP § 706.03(k) for rejection of one claim on another in the same application.
See MPEP § 706.03(w) and § 706.07(b) for res judicata.
See MPEP § 709.01 for one application in interference.
See MPEP § 806.04(h) to § 806.04(i) for species and genus in separate applications.
Wherever appropriate, such conflicting applications should be joined. This is particularly true, where the two or more applications are due to, and consonant with, a requirement to restrict which the examiner now considers to be improper.
Form paragraph 8.29 should be used when the conflicting claims are identical or conceded by applicant to be not patentably distinct.
¶ 8.29 Conflicting Claims, Copending Applications
Claim [1] of this application conflict with claim [2] of Application No. [3]. 37 CFR 1.78(b) provides that when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain conflicting 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. Applicant is required to either cancel the conflicting claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Examiner Note
This form paragraph is appropriate only when the conflicting claims are patentably distinct.
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents