102 art and species election

[examiner_bio]

After speaking with multiple patent prosecutors and one Examiner, I remain still somewhat confused on the following issue.  Here are the prosecution facts and timeline:
(1)  On a national stage application, the US examiner issued a unity of invention rejection in an application which had claims to two groups: claims A-D to a chemical compound (Group 1), and claims E-P to a process of making the compound (Group 2).  The unity of invention rejection included a species election for search purposes.  Note, claim A is a generic chemical compound with lots of R group options.
(2)  In response, Applicant elected the claims to the chemical compound (Group 1) and a corresponding species.
(3) Several months later, the examiner issues an office action that has a 102 rejection.  The examiner found art that taught the species election (so there is no sense in only arguing about the cited reference).

Given the above facts, what are the options for response?
(1) Amend the elected generic claim so it excludes the prior art structure, and argue the reference does not teach or suggest a compound as found in amended claim 1, and give another species to search that falls under elected generic claim.
(2) File a divisional application with claims directed to group 2.

Historically, I've always done option (1).  I don't have any support in the MPEP (especially section 800) or case law for this option, but Examiners seem to be very receptive and have never denied the amendments or said "sorry, I can't search this new species."

Others have emphatically told me that you only get one shot with a species election and so once your species is found, you can only file a divisional application.  I also don't see any support in the MPEP for this option either (especially section 800).

My conclusion so far is that both options are viable.  A call to the Examiner for this application said the same.  The Examiner didn't have any references to the MPEP or case law, but said that examiners will allow an applicant to amend a claim, even if that amendment causes a new search (or species election).

Does anyone have any history with this issue or references for me to investigate?

Thank you!

[two banks of four]

doubtful there's pertinent case law, as issues re: restrictions are usually petitioned to the tech center director

that said, the MPEP is woeful re: what to do in that situation

if I were your examiner, I'd be fine with you changing your election to another species (and this is how my work group handles it).  Where the opinions differ is whether you should cancel claims directed to the previously elected species or if you can simply change your election (so the claims directed to the previously prosecuted species are now withdrawn) without cancelling those claims.  I've looked for what to do, and the MPEP is silent re: this. 

Given the haziness surrounding this matter, I think you've done the correct thing, which is to say, find out from the examiner handling your application and proceed from there

[examiner_bio]

Thanks for this reply, it's very helpful.

[AbstractIdeal]

MPEP 819 seems to address this point. If an examiner is willing to let you switch, then by all means do so, but I don't believe they are required to.

[examiner_bio]

Great find!  After speaking with several different Examiners in different art units, there is a wide variance of how to proceed in each art unit.  Most art units allow an amendment and a new species, but 3600 is one that, at least according to one examiner, the current practice and training curriculum tells them to not allow a new species.  The Examiner did say that in 3600 it is recommended to place at least 2 phone calls to applicant/counsel to discuss options for proceeding.  All to say, it seems that even Examiners are very careful in this area and a phone call can go a long ways towards potential resolution.