In response to a restriction requirement, which action can NOT be taken?

In the context of a restriction requirement in a patent application, the action of abandoning the application is not a permissible response to address the restriction requirement itself. A restriction requirement is issued by the USPTO when an application includes multiple independent and distinct inventions, prompting the applicant to select one for examination.

The other options, such as electing with or without traverse, or provisionally electing, are valid actions that can be taken in response to a restriction requirement. Electing with traverse means the applicant selects an invention but disagrees with the restriction; electing without traverse means the applicant simply chooses one invention and accepts the restriction; and a provisional election allows for more flexibility as the applicant can later decide if they want to pursue other inventions.

Abandoning the application does not directly address the restriction requirement and would terminate all outstanding rights associated with the application, which is not a strategic response to the issue at hand. Thus, abandoning the application is not a viable option in this context.