<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Thanks, Jeff. I\u2019ve had some completely nutso species elections myself. I thought, \u201cReally? 35 separate patents is what you think is warranted here??\u201d I traversed on account of the various specie not being mutually exclusive and eventually got the requirement withdrawn (via petition, if memory serves). Good times.<div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista<div><div><br><br>------------------------------------------<br>Krista S. Jacobsen<br>Attorney and Counselor at Law<br>Jacobsen IP Law<br>krista@jacobseniplaw.com<br>T: 408.455.5539<br>www.jacobseniplaw.com<br><br>NOTICE: This communication may include privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the sender and delete this communication without copying or distributing.</div><div><br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 16, 2024, at 4:35\u202fPM, Jeffrey Semprebon via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Sadly, I have never seen that 1-shot limitation on the examiner. In the best cases, they withdraw the election of inventions but still insist on election of species. Seems here, you could at least request withdrawal of the clearly improper restriction, and just not mention if the 1-10/11-20 split appears valid (no arguments to be made that the examiner hasn't fulfilled all their requirements to fulfill THEIR duty to explain why restriction is necessary. Make the examiner do the work of re-dividing if they're determined to; so many of them cheat on bogus restrictions that it's worth the pushback, IMO.<br><br>In the most flagrant case (15/598659), the petitions board rejected one examiner's assertion that there were 22 patentably distinct species, and the new examiner (previous one no longer on the USPTO employee list by that time) acknowledged that there weren't 22 species, but found "only" 16 patentably distinct species disclosed, and then went on to divide several of those into patentably distinct "subspecies", for a total of 23 patentably distinct "species" or "subspecies". <div><br></div></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px">-Jeff </span><div><br style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px"><span style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px">Jeffrey E. Semprebon</span><br style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px"><font face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="letter-spacing:0.1px">Registered Patent Agent (mechanical) looking for remote work</span></font></div><div><a href="mailto:jesemprebon@gmail.com" target="_blank">jesemprebon@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px"><span style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px">72 Myrtle Street</span><br style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px"><span style="font-family:Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;letter-spacing:0.1px">Claremont, New Hampshire 03743</span><br></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:29\u202fPM Krista Jacobsen via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>If you traverse a restriction requirement that is only partially defective, does the examiner have to withdraw the entire requirement, or can he withdraw just the part that is defective?</div><div><br></div><div>Assume it's a statutory restriction requirement, and the examiner requires restriction to:</div><div><br></div><div><div>Group 1: Claims 1-10</div><div>Group 2: Claims 11-13, 15, 19, and 20</div><div>Group 3: Claims 11, 14-16, 17, and 18</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly, Groups 2 and 3 are neither independent nor distinct. Easiest traverse ever.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But assume that it would not be totally unreasonable if the examiner had required restriction between claims 1-10 and claims 11-20. <br></div><div><br></div><div>What happens when the traverse based on the FUBARity of Groups 2 and 3 is successful? Does the examiner have to withdraw the entire restriction requirement, or just the part that is defective? In other words, can he withdraw the requirement as to Groups 2 and 3 but still require restriction between Group 1 (claims 1-10) and Group 2' (claims 11-20)?<br></div></div><div><br></div><div>I cannot find the answer in the MPEP or in David Boundy's excellent paper, but for some reason I have a vague sense that he gets one shot at restriction, and if he blows it, and the applicant successfully traverses, he has to withdraw the entire thing.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts and (maybe?) experiences.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>------------------------------------------<br></div><div>Krista S. Jacobsen<br></div><div>Attorney and Counselor at Law</div><div>Jacobsen IP Law</div><div><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a></div><div>T: 408.455.5539</div><div><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com/" target="_blank">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>Patentpractice mailing list<br>Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>