(1) Can claims be rejoined even if the election was made without traverse?
(2) Are there any benefits to pursuing the method of treatment claims in a divisional rather than rejoining them? I ask because the method of use claims will be examined on the merits and could potentially face 112 rejections which could delay issuance of the patent and I also worry that the Examiner might come back later with a prior art rejection of the compound claims.
At least three that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
a) avoiding the delay of a patent grant due to examination of the method of use claims
b) avoiding possible prosecution history estoppel that might attach to the composition claims from arguments made for the patentability of the method of use
c) since the two applications were the product of a restriction requirement, the examiner cannot rightfully impose a double patenting rejection and require a termianl disclaimer. Thus, there is the potential to more easily license the composition and method of use to seperate entities (might be useful).