<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’ve received a restriction requirement that seems odd to me, and would appreciate any thoughts. Claim 1 recites a widget generator, and claim 2 recites “wherein the widget generator generates at least one of: A, B, C, or D.” The restriction requirement asserts four groups, each of which includes claim 1, claim 2, and various mixtures of the other claims, with several claims being in two or more of the asserted groups. Claim 1 is said to be generic. The requirement calls for election of a group and a species, and a listing of the elected claims.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is the first time I’ve received a restriction requirement based on a dependent claim.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If it makes a difference, the Examiner is not a primary.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>John Ogilvie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Ogilvie Law Firm<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>2148 E. 11270 S.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Sandy, UT 84092<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>+1 801-706-2546 (mobile)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:none'><a href="mailto:john@OgilvieLawFirm.com">john@OgilvieLawFirm.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>