DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Style
In this action unitalicized bold is used for claim language, while italicized bold is used for emphasis.
Information Disclosure Statement
All information disclosure statements were submitted prior to the first action and are incompliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, they have been considered.
Applicant Reply
“The claims may be amended by canceling particular claims, by presenting new claims, or by rewriting particular claims as indicated in 37 CFR 1.121(c). The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b) must be complied with by pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references in presenting arguments in support of new claims and amendments. . . . The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. . . . An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” MPEP § 714.02. Generic statements or listing of numerous paragraphs do not “specifically point out the support for” claim amendments. “With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a ‘simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.’)” MPEP § 2163(II)(A).
Election/Restrictions
A telephone call was made to Patrick Palascak on 24 June 2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement. Mr. Palascak elected claims 2-4 and 12-14 (including generic claims 1 and 11) without traverse, expressing a preference for the earlier claims in the set. Claims 1-4 and 1-14 are examined below. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are drawn to a particular technique for adjusting a plurality of individual resistance values within a single individual analog neuron, as a way of controlling the overall resistance value within the individual neuron located in a neuromorphic circuit. Applicant is reminded that the office does not permit shift. Claims 5-10 and 15-20, drawn to a particular layout of the overall crossbar architecture of a neuromorphic circuit, used to propagate current through the crossbar during a forward pass, was not elected. Amendments that read on the non-elected claims will not be examined.
Restriction to one of the following patentably distinct species claimed in this application is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121:
I. Claims 2-4 and 12-14, drawn to a particular technique for adjusting a plurality of individual resistance values within a single individual analog neuron, as a way of controlling the overall resistance value within the individual neuron located in a neuromorphic circuit. This is properly classified in G06N3/065 (Analogue Means for physical realization of neural networks, neurons, or parts of neurons).
II. Claims 5-10 and 15-20, drawn to a particular layout of the overall crossbar architecture of a neuromorphic circuit, used to propagate current through the crossbar during a forward pass, also classified in G06N3/065 (Analogue Means for physical realization of neural networks, neurons, or parts of neurons).
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species,1 or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species,2 for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Currently, claims 1 and 11 are generic.3
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other based in the following:4 Inventions I-II are directed to related products and processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive;5 and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different designs, modes of operation, and functions. Specifically, Invention I relates to the techniques used to control individual neurons (cells) within a neuro-morphic circuit. The design and mode of operation of Invention I relate to the way each individual neuron is activated. The function and effect of the techniques of Invention I is to reduce resource requirements by using a particular configuration of each individual cell within a neuromorphic circuit. In contrast, Invention II is directed to the overall (crossbar) configuration of the neuro-morphic circuit. The design and mode of operation of Invention II relates to overall circuit layout, not the operation of individual components within the circuit. The function and effect of Invention II is a particular circuit layout used to propagate current values through layers of crossbars, each including numerous components during the forward pass of a neural network. It is submitted that techniques at the cell level are independent and distinct from a separately claimed overall circuit layout that includes interactions through, and between crossbars. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope6 and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:7 It is noted that inventions I and II are classified in the same classification area. This classification encompasses essentially all analog implementations of neural networks, including techniques related to individual neurons within the network as well as the overall circuit configuration used to implement analog neural networks. Techniques relating to the individual analog neurons and techniques relating to the overall architecture of the network are unlikely to be found in the same reference, or in the same search as techniques.8 For this reason, inventions I and II are likely to require completely different search strategies or queries. Further, while the analog implementations of neural networks fall within the same classification area, the different analog aspects of each invention must also be separately searched. It is unlikely that the claimed analog techniques, used outside of neural networks, would be found in the same classification areas or the same searched.9
Claims 1 and 11 link10 inventions I-IV. The restriction requirement between the linked inventions is subject to the non-allowance of the linking claim(s).11 Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 101 and 112a (Incredible Utility)
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by any credible utility.
All independent claims recite “that each input voltage is multiplied in parallel by the corresponding variable resistance of each corresponding resistor bank to generate a corresponding current for each input voltage . . . execute the functionality of the analog neuromorphic circuit that is generated from each of the input voltages multiplied in parallel with each of the corresponding currents for each of the input voltages added in parallel and the adjusted variable resistance of each resistor bank[.]” Generally, multiplying a voltage by a resistance does not result in a current. Since V=IR but the claims recite V*R equals some I, the claims appear to read on a system which cannot be physically realized. They therefore lack any credible utility. If examiner has misunderstood or overlooked some explanation, any clarification may be a way forward. Arguing verbatim support is unlikely to be persuasive.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a credible well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Generally: separately listed claim elements are construed as distinct components, that all claim terms must be given weight, there is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims, and repeated and consistent descriptions in the specification indicate the proper scope of a claimed term. “[C]laims must ‘conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.’ 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1).” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (as cited in MPEP § 2111). Therefore, use of two different terms in the claims that both rely on the description of a single structure in the Specification may render at least one term indefinite because there is no way to determine which term should be construed in view of the description of the single structure.
All independent claims substantially recite “so that each input voltage is multiplied in parallel by the corresponding variable resistance of each corresponding resistor bank to generate a corresponding current for each input voltage and each corresponding current is added in parallel[.]” It is not clear what operation is meant by “voltage multiplied in parallel by a resistance.” First, it is not clear what is meant by “multiplied in parallel.” That is, the term “parallel” must be given weight. But it is not clear how a multiplication is modified by “parallel.” Second, it is not clear what the product of a resistance and a voltage would represent. One could theoretically multiply the number of volts across a resistor with the number of ohms of the resistor, but it is not clear what this would look like carried out by an analog circuit. Based on Examiner’s understanding, running a voltage across a resistor does not result in multiplying of the voltage by the resistance to generate a corresponding current. Said otherwise, the claims sound like they are reciting VR=I which is confusing because V=IR. If some aspect of the invention has been misunderstood, any clarification may advance prosecution.
All dependent claims are rejected as containing the limitations of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obradovic (US Patent 11,461,620, Published 2022, different assignee).
1. An analog neuromorphic circuit that implements a resistor bank configuration to operate as a plurality of variable resistors, comprising: a plurality of input voltages applied to a plurality of inputs of the analog neuromorphic circuit; a plurality of resistor banks with each resistor bank including a plurality of fixed resistors (Obradovic teaches “The programming input lines 107, 108 are configured to apply a bias voltage to the gating transistors 104, 105, 106 to turn (e.g., program) the gating transistors 104, 105, 106 into either an “ON” or “OFF” state to control (i.e., block or enable) the flow of current through selected passive resistors 101, 102 based on the desired weight of the neuromorphic cell 100.” Obradovic col. 5 ll. 57-64.) with each resistor bank configured to provide a variable resistance to each input voltage applied to each of the inputs (“(19) In the illustrated embodiment, the neuromorphic cell 100 has two passive resistors 101, 102 (e.g., the parallel cell includes two branches) and therefore the neuromorphic cell 100 is configured to provide a 2-bit representation of the weight of the neuron. The 2-bit representation can provide 4 levels of weights (i.e., 2.sup.2 levels of weights). In one or more embodiments, the neuromorphic cell 100 may have any other suitable number passive resistors, such as, for instance, three passive resistors providing a 3-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.3=8 levels of weights) or more than three resistors providing an n-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.n levels of weights). . . . (20) Each passive resistor of the neuromorphic cell 100 has a resistance that is half or substantially half of the resistance of the immediately preceding passive resistor. In the illustrated embodiment, the first passive resistor 101 has a resistance R.sub.0 and the second passive resistor 102 has a resistance R.sub.1 that is half the resistance R.sub.0 of the first passive resistor 101 (i.e., R.sub.1=R.sub.0/2). In one embodiment in which the neuromorphic cell 100 has three passive resistors, the third resistor would have a resistance R.sub.2 that is half of the resistance R.sub.1 of the second passive resistor 102 and a quarter of the resistance R.sub.0 of the first passive resistor 101 (i.e., R.sub.2=R.sub.1/2=R.sub.0/4).” Obradovic col. 5 l. 65 – col. 6 l. 22.) so that each input voltage is multiplied in parallel by the corresponding variable resistance of each corresponding resistor bank to generate a corresponding current for each input voltage and each corresponding current is added in parallel, (With respect to claim interpretation, note that “voltage multiplied in parallel by the corresponding variable resistance” is somewhat unclear language. As best understood, this language refers to the effect on voltage resulting from a given resistance. Any clarification may be helpful to advance prosecution. “Analog neurons have been proposed as a fast and energetically efficient way of performing the multiply-and-add operation performed in ANNs. Storing the weights locally (i.e., local to the neuron-neuron interconnections) is important to performing to the multiply-and-add operations of the ANNs efficiently. Some related art systems utilize analog memory elements for the storage of the neuron weights, with the conductance of the analog memory element representing the weight. The higher the conductance, the higher the weight and therefore the greater the influence of the neuron input which utilizes that conductance.” Obradovic col. 1 ll. 38-47.) wherein the variable resistance of each resistor bank is based on an overall resistance value of the plurality of fixed resistors included in each resistor bank; (See Obradovic col. 5 l. 65 – col. 6 l. 22.) and a controller configured to: adjust the variable resistance of each resistor bank by adjusting the overall resistance value of the plurality of fixed resistors included in each resistor bank to obtain a functionality of the analog neuromorphic circuit, (See Obradovic col. 5 l. 65 – col. 6 l. 22 (“The 2-bit representation can provide 4 levels of weights (i.e., 2.sup.2 levels of weights). In one or more embodiments, the neuromorphic cell 100 may have any other suitable number passive resistors, such as, for instance, three passive resistors providing a 3-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.3=8 levels of weights) or more than three resistors providing an n-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.n levels of weights)”). See also Obradovic Fig. 2A showing the transistors used to control the circuit.) wherein the overall resistance value of each resistor bank is generated from a fixed resistance value of each fixed resistor relative to each other as included in each corresponding resistor bank, (“the neuromorphic multi-bit digital weight cell comprising: a parallel cell comprising: a plurality of passive resistors in parallel, each passive resistor of the plurality of passive resistors having a non-programmable fixed resistance;” Obradovic Claim 9. See also Obradovic Fig. 2A.) and execute the functionality of the analog neuromorphic circuit that is generated from each of the input voltages multiplied in parallel with each of the corresponding currents for each of the input voltages added in parallel and the adjusted variable resistance of each resistor bank. (“The present disclosure is directed to various embodiments of a neuromorphic multi-bit digital weight cell configured to store a series of potential weights for a neuron in an artificial neural network (ANN). In one embodiment, the neuromorphic weight cell includes a parallel cell including a series of passive resistors in parallel and a series of gating transistors. Each gating transistor of the series of gating transistors is in series with one passive resistor of the series of passive resistors.” Obradovic Col. 2 ll. 13-21.)
2. The analog neuromorphic circuit of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: activate each fixed resistor included in each corresponding resistor bank to have each activated fixed resistor provide the fixed resistance value of each activated fixed resistor to the overall resistance value of the plurality of fixed resistors included in the corresponding resistor bank, (See Obradovic Fig. 2A.) wherein each fixed resistor generates the corresponding fixed resistance value when the corresponding fixed resistor is activated; and deactivate each fixed resistor included in each corresponding resistor bank to have each deactivated fixed resistor remove the fixed resistance value of each deactivated fixed resistor from the overall resistance value of the plurality of fixed resistors included in the corresponding resistor bank, wherein each fixed resistor fails to generate the corresponding fixed resistance value when the corresponding fixed resistor is deactivated. (See Obradovic Fig. 2A. See also rejection of claim 1, especially Obradovic col. 5 ll. 57-64.)
3. The analog neuromorphic circuit of claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to: close a switch of each fixed resistor as positioned in parallel in each corresponding resistor bank to activate each corresponding fixed resistor associated with the closed switch to provide the fixed resistance value of each activated fixed resistor in parallel to the overall resistance value of the corresponding resistor bank, (See Obradovic Fig. 2A. See also rejection of claim 1 and Obradovic col. 5 ll. 57-64.) wherein the overall resistance value of the corresponding resistor bank is adjusted based on the fixed resistance values provided in parallel by each activated fixed resistor; and open a switch of each fixed resistor as positioned in parallel in each corresponding resistor bank to deactivate each corresponding fixed resistor associated with the open switch to remove the fixed resistance value of each deactivated fixed resistor from the overall resistance value of the plurality of fixed resistors included in the corresponding resistor bank, wherein the overall resistance value of the corresponding resistor bank is adjusted based on the fixed resistance values removed from being provided in parallel by each deactivated fixed resistor. (See rejection of claim 1 including Obradovic Fig. 2A; Obradovic col. 5 ll. 57-64; and Obradovic col. 5 l. 65 – col. 6 l. 22.)
4. The analog neuromorphic circuit of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine each fixed resistor included in each corresponding resistor bank to activate and each fixed resistor included in each corresponding resistor bank to deactivate to adjust the overall resistance value of each corresponding resistor bank; (See Obradovic col. 5 l. 65 – col. 6 l. 22 (“The 2-bit representation can provide 4 levels of weights (i.e., 2.sup.2 levels of weights). In one or more embodiments, the neuromorphic cell 100 may have any other suitable number passive resistors, such as, for instance, three passive resistors providing a 3-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.3=8 levels of weights) or more than three resistors providing an n-bit representation of the weight (i.e., 2.sup.n levels of weights)”). Obradovic teaches “The programming input lines 107, 108 are configured to apply a bias voltage to the gating transistors 104, 105, 106 to turn (e.g., program) the gating transistors 104, 105, 106 into either an “ON” or “OFF” state to control (i.e., block or enable) the flow of current through selected passive resistors 101, 102 based on the desired weight of the neuromorphic cell 100.” Obradovic col. 5 ll. 57-64. See also Obradovic Fig. 2A showing the transistors used to control the circuit.) and adjust the variable resistance of each resistor bank based on the determined activation of each fixed resistor and the determined deactivation of each fixed resistor to adjust the overall resistance value of each corresponding resistor bank thereby adjusting the variable resistance of each resistor bank to obtain the functionality of the analog neuromorphic circuit. (See rejection of claim 1. See also Obradovic col. 1 ll.27-40 (“As illustrated in FIG. 1, each connection between the neurons has a “weight” (w.sub.ij-w.sub.nj) associated with it. The activation of each neuron is computed by performing a weighted sum of the inputs (x.sub.1-x.sub.n) to the neurons and transferring the linear combination of the weighted inputs into a thresholding activation function (f(S)) with a transfer function. That is, the essential computational element of the ANN performs a multiplication of a set of input signals by a set of weights, followed by a summation (e.g., a linear combination of input signals), which is then thresholded by a comparator. . . . (3) Analog neurons have been proposed as a fast and energetically efficient way of performing the multiply-and-add operation performed in ANNs.”))
For rejections of claims 11-14, see rejections of claims 1-4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Bechtold can be reached on (571. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PAUL M. KNIGHT
/PAUL M KNIGHT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
1 “Action as follows should be taken: . . . (C) Applicant should then be required to elect a single disclosed species under 35 U.S.C. 121, and advised as to the requisites of a complete reply and their rights under 37 CFR 1.141.” MPEP 809.02(a).
2 “In making a requirement for restriction in an application claiming plural species, the examiner should group together species considered clearly unpatentable over each other.” MPEP 806.04(h).
3 “In general, a generic claim should require no material element additional to those required by the species claims, and each of the species claims must require all the limitations of the generic claim.” MPEP § 806.04(d).
4 “In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, . . . other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the species cannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted.” MPEP § 809.02.
5 “Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope.” MPEP § 806.04(f).
6 All claims in each group of species includes at least one limitation that is not found in any claim of another species. See MPEP § 806.04(f).
7 Search burden is evaluated based on the search required in the absence of any restriction, not the burden of an individual species or group of species: “[T]he examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required.” MPEP § 808.02 (emphasis added). Where restriction is required, proper grouping of species is dictated by MPEP 806.04(h).
8 To draw an analogy in a simpler art area, this would be like claiming a particular configuration of holes within a single burner of a gas barbeque, and also claiming a particular configuration of gas burners located within the barbeque.
9 In fact, the art used in the anticipation rejection below, does not mention crossbars.
10 “Where an application includes two or more otherwise properly divisible inventions that are linked by a claim which, if allowable, would require rejoinder (See MPEP § 809 and § 821.04), the examiner should require restriction[.]” MPEP § 809.03. “The most common types of linking claims which, if allowable, act to prevent restriction between inventions that can otherwise be shown to be divisible, are (A) genus claims linking species claims; and (B) subcombination claims linking plural combinations. Where an application includes claims to distinct inventions as well as linking claims, restriction can nevertheless be required.” MPEP § 809.
11 “37 CFR 1.141 provides that an allowable generic claim may link a reasonable number of species embraced thereby. The practice is set forth in 37 CFR 1.146.” MPEP § 806.04.
Prosecution Insights