For a reexamination request, what constitutes a "substantial new question" of patentability?

A "substantial new question" of patentability during a reexamination request is defined as evidence that significantly diverges from prior findings. This concept is critical as it ensures that the reexamination process can address relevant issues that may not have been fully considered in the original patent examination.

In the context of patent proceedings, "substantial new questions" typically involve issues such as new prior art or evidence that could indicate a patent's validity may be questionable. Diverging evidence implies that there are new facts or data that were not previously evaluated, thereby warranting a reassessment of the patent's claims based on a potential change in the patentability criteria regarding novelty, non-obviousness, or usefulness.

While the other options presented may touch on aspects related to patentability, they do not encapsulate the essence of what defines a "substantial new question" as per the standards established by the USPTO. A new claim in an existing patent might not introduce new information that challenges the validity of claims significantly, a new use for an old invention may not reflect a divergence from the original findings, and a novel non-obvious variant of existing claims may still fall under previously established considerations. Thus, the most accurate characterization of a "substantial new question