What is an obvious invention (Section 103 rejection)?

What makes an invention obvious?

There are two main ways an examiner might reject a patent application over prior art. One is anticipation, and the other is obviousness. When claims are rejected as being obvious, it means that the examiner did not find all elements in a single prior art reference. Instead, the examiner may use a combination of prior art references to reject a claim as covering an obvious invention.

Certain requirements must be met by a patent examiner in order to find a claimed invention obvious, such as:

As discussed further below, the absence of any of the above factors can provide significant arguments for the nonbviousness of rejected claims.

How is nonobvious different from novel?

An invention must be both novel and nonobvious in order to be patentable. While the two terms may seem similar, nonobviousness has a different meaning than novelty.

When a patent examiner is unable to find a single prior art reference that shows all elements of a particular claim, the examiner may combine multiple prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner will then reject the claimed invention under 35 USC Section 103 stating that the invention is obvious over the cited prior art. When multiple prior art references are used in an obviousness rejection, there must be a.

A Section 103 rejection can cite a single prior art reference in conjunction with the examiner’s assertion that certain claimed features not shown in the reference would be obvious design modifications.

Therefore, it is possible for a claimed invention to be novel, but obvious at the same time.

Example of an Office Action with Section 103 rejection

In an Office Action with Section 103 rejections the examiner will typically identify a primary prior art reference that shows some of the claim elements. Suppose, for example, your claim covers an invention with three elements: A, B & C. If the examiner found a primary prior art reference disclosing only A and B, then your claim will not be rejected as lacking novelty under Section 102.

Instead, the examiner may look for a secondary prior art reference disclosing C and then reject your claim as being obvious over the primary and second prior art references. In other words, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art of your invention to take the prior art invention of the primary reference (AB) and modify it with the teaching of the secondary reference (C) to arrive at your claimed invention –> ABC. At least, that would be the examiner’s position.

What are examples of obviousness?

There will always be exceptions to the following general categories, but this representative list may be helpful in providing some guidance on obvious inventions:

  • elimination of a step or element and its function
  • automating a manual activity
  • changes in size or shape
  • changes in sequence of adding ingredients
  • making a device portable or mobile
  • making a normally separate structure integral (one-piece)
  • making a normally integral structure separable
  • reversal of parts
  • duplication of parts
  • rearrangement of parts
  • purifying an old product
  • similar or overlapping ranges, amounts or proportions
  • optimizing conditions (e.g., temperature, concentration, etc.) through routine experimentation

How to argue against a Section 103 obviousness rejection

There are several ways to counter an obviousness rejection. Here are some of the more common ways:

How to amend claims and argue non-obviousness

If the combination of prior art really does show all the elements of a particular claim, you can amend the claim to clarify a feature or to add an element. In the above example, you can add element D to the claim which would now comprise ABCD. In conjunction with the claim amendment, you can argue that the combined prior art references altogether fail to show the new claimed combination. Of course, it’s possible that the examiner may search the prior art further and find a third reference that discloses D.

Is there a suggestion or motivation to combine?

Another way of arguing against a Section 103 rejection is to analyze the prior art references closely and find a reason why there would be no motivation to combine the references as suggested by the examiner. For example, if the primary reference expressly states that certain features should be avoided, there would be no motivation to combine the primary reference with a secondary reference disclosing the very feature to be avoided.

One way to argue against the motivation to combine is to study the intended purpose of each prior art reference. Would the examiner’s combination go against the intended purpose of one or more prior art references?

A related argument concerns the principle of operation of the prior art reference. If a proposed modification would change the principle of operation of a prior technology or prior art invention being modified, then there is no motivation to make such a change.

Related to this principle is the issue of analogous art. The combined references should come from the same general field. Otherwise, why would it be obvious to combine a primary reference in one particular sector with a secondary reference in a completely different sector?

Would the combined prior art references have a reasonable expectation of success?

You have to analyze the cited prior art references in detail to look for clues to overcome an obviousness rejection. Suppose Prior Art #1 specifically states that Feature Y must exist in order to achieve a certain result. The examiner then seeks to combine Prior Art #1 with Prior Art #2 to reject your claimed invention as being obvious. In doing so, has the examiner replaced Feature Y in Prior Art #1 with Feature Z in Prior Art #2? If so, would the proposed combination even work especially when Prior Art #1 specified that Feature Y must exist?

If the cited combination would make the final result or product inoperable, a decent argument can be made that there is no reasonable expectation of success. There must be a certain level of predictability of success at the time of the prior art invention, and not at the time when your patent application was filed.

Is the examiner using impermissible hindsight to show obviousness?

Claims are the starting point for examiners, so I don’t really blame examiners for using the hindsight of the claimed invention to search for prior art combinations. The question is whether the examiner is using impermissible hindsight to find the combined prior art. What makes hindsight impermissible? One factor is when the suggested combination betrays the available knowledge and accepted wisdom of the field at the time when those prior art inventions were patented.

For example, if your claimed invention goes against the grain of conventional thinking at the time of prior technologies, it would be impermissible to use the hindsight of your claims to argue that those skilled in the art at the time of the prior technologies would simply do the same.

Evidence that invention is not obvious

If the facts exist, an applicant may submit a written declaration with evidence of certain factors showing non-obviousness such as commercial success, copying by competitors, satisfaction of a long-felt need, etc.

Need to respond to an Obvious Rejection in an Office Action?

Contact US patent attorney Vic Lin by email at vlin@icaplaw.com or call (949) 223-9623 to see how we can develop and execute a strategy to overcome the obviousness rejections in your Office Action.

How useful was this post? (Did you find the information you needed?)

Click on a star to rate it!

Thank you for rating my post!

We want to do better.

Could you tell us what was missing in our post?

Frenda Williams
Frenda Williams
I have had the pleasure of working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group on Trademark creation and contracts. As a solo and non-tech founder, the assistance, guidance and recommendations from Vic and his team have been INVALUABLE. And, with the knowledge that I have a Solid, well versed and caring legal team I can turn to, I have the confidence I need to navigate the intricacies of the tech industry as a solo founder. With that being said, If you’re a startup and you’re looking for a legal team that speaks your language, knows the industry and makes you feel like family…. Innovation Capital Law Group is a Perfect fit for you, your company and your team. Five out of Five Stars… don’t let their brilliance blind you 😁
Shiwei Liu
Shiwei Liu
Excellent service and quick response. Lots of informative documents on its website.
Chang Chien Michael
Chang Chien Michael
I have worked with iCap for more than 7 years. I am very glad with his professional knowledge that 7 utility patents were granted by USPTO. Vic and his team are very efficient and knowledgeable. Every time he can transcribe my design idea perfectly in two weeks and file it with no rejection from USPTO. The other service including the granted patent following up is always in time to remind me to take actions. That is why I still stick on iCap as my first priority when I want to file a US patent.
Mats Johansson
Mats Johansson
We have been happy client for 10+ years. Awesome Patent Law Firm!
Hanson Chang
Hanson Chang
Glad to write a review for Innovation Capital Law Group. We previously worked with a big law firm (2200 employees) on our patents, and decided to shift over to Innovation Capital. It was a great decision, this team got our patents done faster, more effectively, at a lower cost, and with broader claims. Win all around
Genevieve Springer
Genevieve Springer
Clear, discernible tools and strategies couched within a business conceived from a genuine interest in doing right by founders.
InPlay Inc
InPlay Inc
Vic and his team have been providing us with the best patent application experiences we could ever have in our entire career life! Their professionalism and technical knowledge have really saved us a lot of communication effort and time on the applications. Definitely highly recommend if anyone is looking for help with IP protection for their business.
Meg Crowley
Meg Crowley
After working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group, our organization is confident our trademarks were solid and protected. Thank you team.
Andy Dong
Andy Dong
I have been using Innovation Capital Law Group for a few years and continue to use them. They have provided an excellent services on our legal issues including intellectual properties and patents . They are very responsive, easy to work with and very competent . I highly recommend them.

Follow us

Copyright © Vic Lin 2023