Patent bar Restriction and double patenting question: Saanvi Rao properly traversed a restriction requirement

Patent barRestriction and double patenting

Saanvi Rao properly traversed a restriction requirement, and the examiner made it final. Her elected claims were later finally rejected, and on Monday, June 1, 2026, she filed a notice of appeal. On Monday, June 15, 2026, she files a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 asking the Director to review the restriction requirement. Which statement is correct?

A Untimely, because a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed no later than the notice of appeal
B The petition is timely, as a 1.144 petition may be deferred until after final action on the elected claims
C The petition should be presented to the Board instead, since the restriction can be reviewed on appeal
D The petition is timely, as it was filed within two months of the notice of appeal
E The petition is timely, because the right to petition lasts until the Board decides the appeal

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: A. Untimely, because a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed no later than the notice of appeal

Answer: Untimely, because a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed no later than the notice of appeal. After a final restriction requirement, a petition under 1.144 may be deferred until after final action on, or allowance of, the elected claims, but it must be filed not later than appeal, that is, no later than the filing date of the notice of appeal (37 CFR 1.144; MPEP 818.01(c)). Rao filed her petition two weeks after the June 1 notice of appeal. Why not the others: - Deferral until after final action: deferral is allowed, but the outer limit is the notice of appeal. - Two months after the notice of appeal: no such window exists for 1.144 petitions. - Board review: restriction requirements are reviewed by petition, not appeal. - The Board does not decide restriction requirements, and the petition right ends at the notice of appeal. Rule: A 1.144 petition may be deferred, but never past the filing date of the notice of appeal. Source: MPEP § 818.01(c) (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); 37 CFR 1.144, 1.181; as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Assuming the petition can wait until the appeal is under way.

Practice more Patent bar Restriction and double patenting questions

Exam-style questions with worked answers, then full timed mocks. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Study note: Restriction and double patenting Patent barpractice questions & mock exams

Related Patent bar practice questions

The examiner requires restriction among Group I (a pump), Group II (a method of making the pump) and Group III (a method of irrigating with the pump). Within the period for reply, the applicant files a detailed traversal arguing that all three groups can be searched together, but deliberately makes no election because it considers the requirement improper. Which statement is correct?In reply to a requirement to restrict between a catalyst and a process of using it, practitioner Hugo Lambert writes: 'Applicant elects Group I, with traverse,' and gives no reasons. After the elected claims are allowed, he wants to petition the Director under 37 CFR 1.144 to review the requirement. Which statement is correct?A claim recites a mathematical formula for calculating the optimal cure time of rubber, and further recites constantly measuring mold temperature, recalculating the cure time with the formula, and automatically opening the press when the calculated time has elapsed. Under the USPTO's analysis, which conclusion is best supported?

Build a daily practice habit — a few exam-style questions a day, with worked answers. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Original study material written from the MPEP; not a question from the current exam.Independent. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO. Verify figures and rules against current guidance before relying on them.