USPTO Patent Bar Practice Exam 2025 - Free Patent Bar Practice Questions and Study Guide

To successfully overcome a 102(a)(2) rejection, the statement from Company A must demonstrate that the application is not anticipated by prior art. A rejection under this section typically occurs when a previously filed patent application is published before the filing date of the current application and claims the same subject matter.

The correct approach to countering this is to show that both applications share a common ownership status before the critical date. This means that if Company A and the earlier filed application are owned by the same entity or are under the same control, the current application may not be fully anticipated by the prior application according to U.S. patent law.

Including proof of common ownership helps to establish that the earlier application is not a bar to the later one, thus resolving the grounds of the 102(a)(2) rejection. Establishing this common ownership prior to the filing date is crucial because it can effectively break the chain of anticipation that would otherwise arise from earlier filings.

While evidence of independent invention or verification of novelty may focus on aspects of patentability, they do not address the specific legal framework governing a rejection under 102(a)(2). Additionally, a resume of the inventors' qualifications would not directly pertain to overcoming a legal rejection based on prior