Question: 

A non-final Office action contains, among other things, a restriction requirement between two groups of claims, (Group 1 and Group 2). Which of the following, if included in a timely reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111, preserves applicant’s right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement?
I. Applicant’s entire reply to the restriction requirement is: “The examiner erred in distinguishing between Group 1 and Group 2, and therefore the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed and no election is being made, in order that applicant’s right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved.”
II. Applicant’s entire reply to the restriction requirement is: “Applicant elects Group 1 and respectfully traverses the restriction requirement, because the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2.”
III. Applicant’s reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, “Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction
requirement and no election is being made, in order that applicant’s right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved.”
IV. Applicant’s reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, “Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and elects Group 2."

Instructions:

  1. Click on an answer to submit it. Don't click if you're not sure!
  2. For answers with images, you can click to enlarge it without submitting the answer.
Continue
Question Stats: 
Patent Bar Exam review questions
Question Difficulty Score (QDS):
0
Question Difficulty Rank (QDR):
50
Number of Answers:
0
Relevance Rating:
No ratings yet.