What is the role of utility in determining the restriction between a combination and subcombination?

The concept of utility plays a crucial role in determining the relationship between a combination and its subcombinations in the context of patentability. In patent law, a subcombination refers to a portion of a larger invention that can stand on its own in terms of its functionality and usefulness. For a subcombination to be severed from a combination and treated independently in a patent application, it must demonstrate independent utility.

This means that the subcombination must perform a specific function or provide a particular benefit that is not wholly dependent on the larger combination. If the subcombination lacks its own utility and can only be utilized as part of the complete combination, the patent office may view them as interdependent, and thus, may require the filing of a single patent application covering the entire combination.

In contrast, other options do not appropriately address the relationship of utility between a combination and a subcombination. The idea that both must serve the same utility implies a level of dependency that does not take into account the potential for subcombinations to function independently. Suggesting that the combination must lack utility misrepresents the scenario, as a combination can be entirely useful while still having separable subcombinations. Saying that utility is irrelevant fails to acknowledge a