(1) Two or more comparison documents are combined to deny the novelty or creativity of this application, and the closest prior art and technical features of this application have been disclosed in other comparison documents, and their technical fields and functions are the same.
(2) Considering the comparison documents and common sense, it is considered that the technical scheme required by this application is easy to think of and obvious, thus denying the novelty or creativity of this application.
In view of the above two opinions, you can try the following ways to reply, which can improve the persuasiveness. Moreover, in the actual reply process of OA, the probability of being accepted is relatively high, so the possibility of authorization is also relatively large.
For the first review opinion, when analyzing the comparison document, it is necessary to find the closest existing technology, usually the comparison document 1 in the review opinion. According to the general review opinion, the technical features of the comparison document 1 and this application are disclosed by other comparison documents, and the technical problems solved and functions played are the same as this application, so the comparison document 1 can be combined with other comparison documents, thus denying the creativity of this application.
At this time, we can analyze other comparison documents. If the comparison document 1 and the technical features of this application are disclosed in other comparison documents, and the technical features are different from those in this application and have different functions, it is easy to reply, which is not discussed in this paper.
If they are the same and play the same role, then there will be a feeling of no answer. At this time, the agent needs to use reverse argument, that is, whether the different technical features disclosed in other comparison documents 1 can be applied to the comparison document 1. Although the comparison document 1 can be combined with other comparison documents in theory, it may not have technical enlightenment in practice.
For example, the comparison file 1 discloses most of the technical features of this application, only the distinctive technical feature A exists, and the comparison file 2 discloses the technical feature A. The agent can check other features of the comparison file 1, and besides the features in this application, the structure C is also set. Setting structure C is an important factor to achieve the purpose of reference document 1, which solves some technical problems. When setting structure C, it may not be possible to combine technical feature A, which is probably contrary to the original intention of improving products in comparison file 1, so there is no technical inspiration to combine other comparison files with feature A in comparison file 1, and it is also impossible to combine comparison file 1 with other comparison files as described by the examiner, thus undermining the creativity of this application.
At this point, readers may have doubts. It seems that only in a few cases will there be reasons to prove that the technical features in other comparison documents cannot be applied to the comparison document 1.
In fact, in most cases handled by the author, we can find the reason why the comparison file 1 can't apply the characteristics in other comparison files. Because the probability of two cases being completely the same or highly similar is very small after all, the comparison file 1 in the review opinion is generally different from the technical problems and technical solutions solved in this application. On this basis, the comparison file 1 will inevitably add some technical features to solve the technical problems in the comparison file 1, which will often lead to the inapplicability and contradiction of different technical features in this application (technical features disclosed in other comparison files). Therefore, this method of reverse argument "no technical enlightenment" is an ideal solution to answer such review opinions.
According to the second review opinion, it is considered that the technical characteristics of the difference between the application documents and the comparison documents are easy to think of and obvious. At this time, the examiner may have the question of "being wise after the event", which is also difficult to answer. "Easy to think of" is subjective, so we still have to make a reverse argument.
For example, how to apply this feature in the known technology is not the case in this scheme, and the technical problems solved are inconsistent with those in the known technology; In addition, for this kind of products, it is not easy to use the technical characteristics of this application to solve this kind of problems or even overcome technical prejudice by combining the development history and the technical solutions often adopted to solve this kind of technical problems.
When replying to this kind of examination opinions, it is necessary to seriously consider what the so-called common sense is, what the technicians in this field will do when setting up this kind of structure, and whether the treatment of this application is combined with a special product structure or a special use environment, so as to convince the examiner that the seemingly simple scheme of this application actually overcomes the technical prejudice, is different from the conventional practice, and solves certain technical problems and is creative.
The above is a summary of the experience of replying to the review opinions, which can be used as a reference for replying to such review opinions. According to different cases, the review opinions vary widely. The above summary may not be applicable to all the review opinions, but the defense can be considered from the above angles to find a breakthrough, which is also an important way to exercise the agent's logical thinking ability.