In the context of a Restriction Requirement, what does the term "traverse" mean?

In the context of a Restriction Requirement, the term "traverse" refers to an applicant's action to contest or argue against the examiner's assertion that the application claims are directed to multiple, distinct inventions that require separation. When an applicant traverses a restriction requirement, they assert that the claims do not cover multiple inventions and contend that the application should be allowed to proceed without having to limit the claims to one invention. This action is important because it establishes the applicant’s position on the examiner's requirement and can influence whether the examiner reconsiders their stance or requires the applicant to comply with the restriction.

Engaging in a traverse indicates that the applicant believes the examiner's reasoning is flawed and provides an opportunity for dialogue about the merits of the claims within the same application. This step can lead to further clarification or even withdrawal of the restriction requirement based on the arguments presented.

The other options do not accurately represent the meaning of "traverse" in this specific context, as agreeing with the examiner's rejection would not be a traverse, filing a new application would be a separate action entirely, and amending claims could involve complying with the restriction rather than contesting it.