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?

When addressing a 102(a)(2) rejection, which typically relates to prior art and the disclosure of the subject matter in earlier-filed applications by another entity, the correct action involves providing accurate information regarding ownership at the time of filing.

Choosing to present a statement of common ownership before the second filing date is appropriate because this situation allows the USPTO to consider both Inventor A's and Inventor B's contributions as if they belong to a single entity. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), prior art can indeed include co-owned applications. Thus, showing that the inventors are commonly owned at the time of the second filing can help overcome the rejection based on prior art.

Common ownership is essential here because, if the two inventors are under a common entity, their applications won’t be considered prior art against one another. This means that the second application wouldn’t be rejected based on the first application if it is shown that the inventions are from a common assignee during the relevant timeframe.

The other choices, while potentially relevant in other contexts, do not directly address the crucial aspect of common ownership at the time of the application’s filing in response to a 102(a)(2) rejection.