As shown in the above figure, the most common reason for rejecting the first nuclear rebuttal in the past ten years is that 103 is not obvious, accounting for 66%, followed by the novelty of 102, accounting for 38%. The least common rejection factor is the authorized object of 10 1, accounting for only 6. 1%. It should be noted that the percentage of all rejection reasons does not add up to 100%, because each rejection can contain multiple factors.
Why are most patent applications rejected because they are not obvious?
Article 103 of the United States Patent Law stipulates that the patented invention must be obviously different from the existing technology. Therefore, if the patent application is rejected because it is not obvious, it means that the invention is obvious. Not obvious is subjective. The effective way to judge whether the patent is not obvious is to find ordinary technicians. Is the degree of invention obvious to ordinary technicians in the technical field when applying for a patent? Although this method is adopted in the court law, it is still controversial because the technical background has a great influence on the judgment result. The patent completion time is different, and under the background of different technical levels, the level of existing technology and general technicians who judge non-obviousness may be different.
How should the applicant respond to the rejection of the application?
For the patent application that has not been obviously rejected, the applicant has many ways to deal with the first rebuttal, such as requesting to continue the examination, appealing, talking or a combination of these ways. Let's take a look at all the ways to deal with patent applications that are rejected because of non-obviousness, and then decide which scheme to choose. Because there are various methods to deal with patent rejection, it is uncertain which method is preferred, but it is certain that these responses have been made before the application is rejected again or the patent is granted.
In response to the first rebuttal, the vast majority of applicants chose to submit a request for review, accounting for 56.6%, while the proportion of applicants who chose to meet and appeal was very small, accounting for 6.9% and 9.3% respectively. The proportion of applicants who choose to continue to review and meet the requirements is also very small, accounting for 9.3%. Other coping styles include abstention, accounting for 17.9%.
How to successfully deal with patent rejection?
Some patent applications were rejected for the first time because of non-obviousness. In some cases, although the patent was not granted, the second rejection did not involve non-obviousness, so we can say that we succeeded. "For example, the first refusal was due to non-obviousness and the authorized object. After the applicant responded to the lawsuit, it was rejected for the second time only because of the authorized object, and the reason for rejection was not obvious, indicating that the lawsuit was successful.
As shown in Figure 4, petition is the most effective way to respond to the rebuttal of 103, followed by meeting. The most ineffective response is to submit a request for further review. The method of continuing to review and satisfy the request slightly improves the probability of success. Although submitting a request for review is the most common way to deal with the rebuttal of 103, it turns out that this method has the lowest success rate. Of course, which method is the most effective depends on the examiner of the patent case. When some applicants see the overall situation of the examiners and technical centers of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, many applicants will skip the request for further examination and go directly to the appeal procedure.
What are the common reasons for the US Patent Office to reject patent applications?