Patent Law

Restriction Requirements on the Rise?

By J. Matthew Buchanan, Stephen M. Nipper, and Douglas Sorocco.

I try not to rant here too often, but seeing posts on the allowance rate dropping (within a few years) from 70+% to ~50% and questions regarding whether there has been a secret change to official USPTO policy regarding examination and allowance makes me say “hmm…..”

One thing I’ve been noticing is that the number of restriction requirements appears to be on the rise. 

I don’t mind restriction requirements that are appropriate…there is a reason for them.  But, I have to admit, I’m having a hard time believing some of the reasons I’ve been seeing recently.  For instance, the one I received earlier this week…the entire support for the rejection?  “The species are distinct because each of them has a distinct feature.”  No reasons provided.  No examples to support conclusions.  Just a blanket statement that (essentially) the embodiments each have a distinct feature and thus they must be patentably distinct species.  Argh.

Is it just me???  Anyone else seeing more restriction requirements than they used to?  The comments are open.

Full post as published by Rethink(IP) on February 13, 2007 (boomark / email).