Regarding common ownership exceptions, which statement is correct about the necessity of entire disclosure?

The correct statement regarding the common ownership exceptions is that only the relevant portion for the rejection must be commonly owned. This principle is rooted in the way that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) handles the examination of applications that are related to one another, such as in the case of obviousness rejections.

When a patent examiner assesses whether a claim in one application is obvious in light of prior art, and that prior art includes material from another application, it is essential that the portions used for the rejection share common ownership. This means that if one application is owned by the same entity as the other, it allows the examiner to combine information from both to determine patentability. Therefore, it is not necessary for the entire disclosure of both applications to be commonly owned, only the sections that are pertinent to the rejection.

Understanding this concept is critical in navigating patent prosecution, particularly when there are multiple applications in play, as it helps applicants utilize their own disclosures effectively during the examination process. Other statements indicate more stringent or less relevant requirements regarding common ownership, which do not apply to the situation at hand.