706.02(b)   Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-9]

A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b)  can be overcome by:

    • (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
    • (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
    • (C) Perfecting benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78(a)  or filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.78(a), by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76  which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 (a), and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 201.11 and § 706.02; or
    • (D) Perfecting benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) by complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 (a) (see item (C) above). Since a provisional application could not have been filed more than one year prior to the filing of a nonprovisional application that claims benefit to the provisional application, once the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)  is perfected, the rejection must be reconsidered to determine whether the prior art still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)  or whether the prior art qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). If the prior art qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), see below as to how to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)  rejection.

A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e)  can be overcome by:

    • (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
    • (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
    • (C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132  showing that the reference invention is not by "another." See MPEP § 715.01(a), § 715.01(c), and § 716.10;
    • (D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131  showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715 for more information on 37 CFR 1.131  affidavits. When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131  is not an acceptable method of overcoming the rejection. Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. If there is a common assignee or inventor between the application and patent, a double patenting rejection must be made. See MPEP § 804. If there is no common assignee or inventor and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)  is the only possible rejection, the examiner must determine whether an interference should be declared. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for more information regarding interferences;
    • (E) Submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 (a)(1) or filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55 (c). See MPEP § 201.13. The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the application (and an English language translation, if the document is not in English) (see 37 CFR 1.55 (a)(3)) and the examiner has established that the priority document satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; or
    • (F) Perfecting benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)  or 120, within the time periods set in 37 CFR 1.78 (a) or filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.78 (a), by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76  which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78(a), and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 201.11 and § 706.02 .

A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(a)  can be overcome by:

    • (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
    • (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
    • (C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131  showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715 for information on the requirements of 37 CFR 1.131  affidavits. When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131  is not appropriate to overcome the rejection.
    • (D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132  showing that the reference invention is not by "another." See MPEP § 715.01(a), § 715.01(c), and § 716.10;
    • (E) Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) as explained in reference to 35 U.S.C. 102(e)  above;
    • (F) Perfecting benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)  or 120  as explained in reference to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) above.