To avoid an obviousness-type double patenting rejection, what option can be utilized?

To avoid an obviousness-type double patenting rejection, filing a terminal disclaimer is a valid and effective strategy. A terminal disclaimer allows the applicant to limit the term of a newly issued patent so that it does not extend beyond the terms of an earlier patent. This effectively mitigates concerns over the potential for two patents to cover similar inventions, which is the essence of double patenting.

When an applicant files a terminal disclaimer, they must agree that the newly issued patent will expire no later than the expiration of the earlier one. This is particularly important in the context of double patenting, as it helps to prevent the applicant from enjoying an extended exclusivity period on what is essentially the same invention, which would be unfair to competitors in the market.

This approach does not prevent the issuance of the new patent but ensures that both inventions—if they are related—do not have separate, overlapping periods of patent protection that could unfairly extend the monopolistic benefit provided by the patent system.

The other options do not effectively address the issue of obviousness-type double patenting. Filing for a new patent on the same invention would typically lead to a rejection rather than a resolution of the double patenting concern. A continuation patent can often result in similar claims being interpreted as