AI for Restriction Requirement Responses: Election Strategy and Traversal Guide
Restriction requirements force a strategic choice between invention groups. AI tools can analyze claim relationships, recommend elections, draft traversal arguments, and track divisional deadlines.
Understanding Restriction Requirements
A restriction requirement occurs when the examiner determines that an application contains claims directed to two or more distinct or independent inventions. The applicant must elect one invention group for prosecution. Non-elected claims can be pursued in divisional applications.
Restriction (Distinct Inventions)
Claims are directed to distinct inventions that do not overlap in scope. Under MPEP 806.05, the inventions must be either independent (not related) or related but distinct (e.g., product and process where the product can be made by another process, or process and apparatus where the process can be practiced by another apparatus).
Election of Species
The examiner requires election of a single disclosed species from a genus claim. After examination of the elected species, if generic claims are found allowable, examination is extended to non-elected species (MPEP 809.02(a)).
The Strategic Decision: Which Group to Elect
Electing the right invention group is a strategic decision with long-term prosecution and business implications. AI tools can analyze multiple factors to recommend the optimal election:
Commercial Value Assessment
AI identifies which claim group most closely covers the product or service being commercialized. The elected group should protect the core business value.
Claim Strength Analysis
AI assesses the relative strength of each group against likely prior art. Groups with broader independent claims and fewer prior art challenges are stronger candidates for election.
Prosecution Efficiency
AI evaluates which group is likely to proceed to allowance fastest, considering examiner patterns, art unit statistics, and the complexity of the claims in each group.
Divisional Strategy
AI maps out the divisional filing strategy for non-elected groups, including deadline tracking and how non-elected claims relate to the elected claims for potential rejoinder.
Traversal: When and How to Argue
Applicants can traverse (disagree with) the restriction requirement while still making an election. Traversal preserves the right to petition later. AI can help draft traversal arguments by identifying weaknesses in the examiner's restriction rationale.
Common Traversal Arguments:
- Inventions are not distinct -- they share a special technical feature
- Search burden is not serious -- claims are in the same class/subclass
- Product and process claims are commensurate in scope
- Species are not patentably distinct from the generic claim
When Traversal Is Worth It:
- Groups share significant overlapping claim limitations
- Filing divisionals is cost-prohibitive for the client
- All groups are commercially important
- The restriction rationale is weak or inconsistent
Always Traverse With Election
Best practice is to always traverse while making the election. This preserves the right to petition or request rejoinder later, at no additional cost. Failure to traverse waives the right to petition.
How AI Handles Restriction Requirements
Parse the Restriction Requirement
AI extracts the invention groups, identifies which claims belong to each group, and maps the examiner's rationale for restriction (distinct inventions, independent/related, species election).
Analyze Claim Relationships
AI compares claims across groups element-by-element to identify overlapping limitations. High overlap suggests the restriction may be improper and traversal is warranted.
Assess Each Group's Strength
AI evaluates each group against prior art, specification support, and commercial relevance. The recommended election balances prosecution strength with business value.
Draft Traversal Arguments
If overlap exists, AI generates traversal arguments citing shared technical features, search burden analysis, and MPEP authority for why the restriction is improper.
Track Divisional Deadlines
AI tracks the copendency requirement for divisional filings and alerts when non-elected claims need to be filed before the parent application issues.
Rejoinder: Getting Non-Elected Claims Back
Under MPEP 821.04, if an elected product claim is found allowable, withdrawn process claims that require the allowable product should be rejoined. AI tools can track which non-elected claims are eligible for rejoinder based on their dependency on elected claims.
Rejoinder Eligibility Checklist:
- Elected product/apparatus claims have been found allowable
- Non-elected process claims require the allowable product as a limitation
- The restriction was between a product and a process of using that product
- Traversal was preserved (you traversed with your election)
- Process claims are amended to require all allowable product claim limitations
Analyze Your Restriction Requirement
Upload an Office Action with a restriction requirement and get AI-powered election recommendations and traversal arguments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Guides
7 tools compared with pricing and verdicts.
Examiner Intelligence GuideUse examiner data to inform prosecution strategy.
AI for Double Patenting RejectionsTerminal disclaimer strategy and ODP claim comparison.
AI for 112 Written Description RejectionsEnablement, written description, and indefiniteness analysis.