In the case where Inventor A and Inventor B are from different companies, what action can Company A take to address a 102(a)(2) rejection?

In the scenario where Inventor A and Inventor B are from different companies, addressing a 102(a)(2) rejection involves demonstrating that the parties involved share common ownership of the claimed invention. The correct action is to provide a statement of common ownership before the second filing date.

A 102(a)(2) rejection occurs when a prior patent application or patent is cited, and it states that the cited application is effectively a prior art reference against a current application. When the inventors of these applications are different and they are from separate companies, it typically indicates that the ownership of the invention rights has not been established in a way that could overcome a rejection based on common ownership.

By providing a statement of common ownership before the second filing date, Company A can effectively communicate that even though the inventors are from different companies, they have a shared ownership interest in the invention being claimed. This can help alleviate the concerns regarding the cited prior application or patent.

This action is essential because common ownership is a critical factor that can make a difference in the patentability of an application. Without such proof or acknowledgment of common ownership, the rejection would likely stand since the prior art documents would remain relevant under 102(a)(2).

Other options, while potentially