[Patentpractice] Species restriction

Tue Jun 10 18:05:59 UTC 2025

I.e., after electing P1, we leave claim 2 as is, and it will be examined only to the extent it covers the elected property P1.  Is that correct? YES

As to strategy of what to elect, I choose the species that the client is using. If there are multiple species that the client uses, I elect the more important one.

Roger
Masson
Senior Counsel
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
,
Chicago
,
IL

60606
O: 312-704-3516<tel:312-704-3516>
 |
F: 312-704-3001<fax:312-704-3001>
RMasson at hinshawlaw.com<mailto:RMasson at hinshawlaw.com>
My Bio<https://www.hinshawlaw.com/professionals-roger-masson.html>
 |
hinshawlaw.com<http://hinshawlaw.com/>
 |
[Hinshaw LinkedIn Page]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/17618/>
[Hinshaw Facebook Page]<https://www.facebook.com/hinshawlaw/>
[Hinshaw Twitter Page]<https://twitter.com/hinshaw>
[cid:image004.jpg at 01DBDA08.292907F0]<https://www.instagram.com/hinshawlaw/>
[Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP]<http://www.hinshawlaw.com/>
[cid:image006.jpg at 01DBDA08.292907F0]<https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-news-hinshaw-90-year-anniversary.html>
[cid:image007.jpg at 01DBDA08.292907F0]<https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-news-hinshaw-2023-2024-mansfield-rule-certification-trendsetter-firm.html>

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Patent Lawyer <patentlawyer995 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Species restriction

So, if you have claims like: Claim 1 recites "measuring one or more physical properties of a blob. . . ", and Claim 2 recites "the system of claim 1, wherein physical properties comprise P1, P2, P3, and P4. " The species restriction

So, if you have claims like:

Claim 1 recites "measuring one or more physical properties of a blob...", and
Claim 2 recites "the system of claim 1, wherein physical properties comprise P1, P2, P3, and P4."

The species restriction is on the properties P1, P2, P3, and P4 in claim 2.  The examiner says to pick one of them.
And we elect property P1.

The species election just says that claims 1 and 2 read on the invention.  Right?

We leave claim 2 as it is.  Right?

I.e., after electing P1, we leave claim 2 as is, and it will be examined only to the extent it covers the elected property P1.  Is that correct?

Assuming the disclosure is enabling for each of the properties (P1 … P4), is there a suggested strategy for which one to elect?

(I understand about traversing, but I am trying to be sure about what to do with the claims)

From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Reply-To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 10:06 AM
To: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com<mailto:DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>>, Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Richard Straussman <rstraussman at weitzmanip.com<mailto:rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Species restriction

Thanks!
Richard Straussman
Senior Counsel
Registered Patent Attorney
Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weitzman Law Offices, LLC
Intellectual Property Law
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
Roseland, NJ 07068
direct line 973.403.9943
main 973.403.9940
fax 973.403.9944
e-mail rstraussman at weitzmanip.com<mailto:rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>

http://www.weitzmanip.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.weitzmanip.com/__;!!DSW8GXjB_AIhxt_iwsTS!SDHrMtu-KppMFn9_KSy0HY_CFdbjMKodEzJAHaySabTpWmwFofx0p13sSHMsVp1UKT1ZuSz29JD2WEJoMVy4nWr-YYCZb4tOEQ$>

On 6/10/2025 10:01 AM, David Boundy wrote:
Yes, theoretically this is proper use of election of species (EoS is common for Markush groups, for instance).

The main constraint is "mutually exclusive."  So to change your hypo slightly, "wherein the writing instrument produces a black line or has a six-sided barrel" wouldn't be electable because those two aren't mutually exclusive.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:39 AM Richard Straussman via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
All,

    Looking for some guidance.  Is it proper for an examiner to issue a species restriction where all of the supposedly different species are present in the same dependent claim (as opposed to separate dependent claims)?

    For example, if claim 1 recites a "writing implement" and claim 2 says, "the system of claim 1, wherein the writing implement is one of a pencil or a ball point pen"?    I am used to the type of species restriction issued involving , for example, claim 2 stating "the system of claim 1, wherein the writing implement is a pencil" and claim 3 stating "the system of claim 1, wherein the writing implement is a ball point pen."

    NOTE:  I am not concerned with the propriety of such restrictions or the arguments that can be made against them (thank you David for your repeated guidance to the group on those points), only the specific situation where the supposed different species are all recited in the same claim.

    Thanks in advance!

        Rich
--
Richard Straussman
Senior Counsel
Registered Patent Attorney
Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weitzman Law Offices, LLC
Intellectual Property Law
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
Roseland, NJ 07068
direct line 973.403.9943
main 973.403.9940
fax 973.403.9944
e-mail rstraussman at weitzmanip.com<mailto:rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>

http://www.weitzmanip.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.weitzmanip.com/__;!!DSW8GXjB_AIhxt_iwsTS!SDHrMtu-KppMFn9_KSy0HY_CFdbjMKodEzJAHaySabTpWmwFofx0p13sSHMsVp1UKT1ZuSz29JD2WEJoMVy4nWr-YYCZb4tOEQ$>

--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!DSW8GXjB_AIhxt_iwsTS!SDHrMtu-KppMFn9_KSy0HY_CFdbjMKodEzJAHaySabTpWmwFofx0p13sSHMsVp1UKT1ZuSz29JD2WEJoMVy4nWr-YYCbDKTQ5Q$>

-- Patentpractice mailing list Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!DSW8GXjB_AIhxt_iwsTS!SDHrMtu-KppMFn9_KSy0HY_CFdbjMKodEzJAHaySabTpWmwFofx0p13sSHMsVp1UKT1ZuSz29JD2WEJoMVy4nWr-YYCbDKTQ5Q$>

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an Illinois registered limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).

The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2084 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2091 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1397 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1425 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11099 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39131 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 45183 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250610/f7fde559/attachment-0006.jpg>