美国专利

        向前辈请教：  我们向美国递交了一份专利申请，审查员发了一份“RestrictionRequirement”，审查员认为我们的权利要求不具有单一性，将全部权利要求分为四组，让我们只能选择一组权利要求，我们选择了第二组，美国事务所说第二组权利要求如果“is found allowable”，撤回（withdraw）的其它三组权利要求就可以“be rejoined”,我想问一下，撤回的权利要求可以“be rejoined”，是不是意味着rejoin的权利要求可以直接授权？

第一次就这么悲催，没人回答啊!

看看底下的规定  MPEP 821.04

选择第二组后 其他的三组记得相关Claims的状态必须维持 “withdrawn” 而非 “cancelled”
一旦选择的权利要求获准了 其他未选择的请求项可以在依附这些核准的请求项 或是包括了核准的请求项的所有条件下 也可直接获准授权(In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined.) 参照MPEP 821.04

一般而言 审查员会在获准通知时告知未选择请求项 rejoinded….

但若未写明 记得要求美国代理人提出此请求~~

提供参考~~

821.04   Rejoinder [R-3]
** > The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Rejoinder involves withdrawal of a restriction requirement between an allowable elected invention and a nonelected invention and examination of the formerly nonelected invention on the merits.
In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. Furthermore, where restriction was required between a product and a process of making and/or using the product, and the product invention was elected and subsequently found allowable, all claims to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim for the claims directed to that process invention to be eligible for rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04(b). In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder.
Rejoined claims must be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112.
The requirement for restriction between the rejoined inventions must be withdrawn. Any claim(s) presented in a continuation or divisional application that are anticipated by, or rendered obvious over, the claims of the parent application may be subject to a double patenting rejection when the restriction requirement is withdrawn in the parent application. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.

太感谢了