What results may arise from failing to meet the requirements for common ownership in a patent application?

When common ownership requirements are not met in a patent application, one significant consequence is the potential for rejections based on prior art and double patenting. The patent system has established rules to prevent an applicant from obtaining patents on closely related inventions that are owned by the same entity, which would essentially grant a monopoly that is unjustified by separate inventive contributions.

If two inventions are considered to be closely related, and a new application is filed without common ownership, the claims may be rejected on the grounds of double patenting. This occurs because the applicant could effectively be seeking patents for inventions that are not distinct enough to warrant separate protections, leading to an unfair extension of patent rights.

Additionally, failing to adhere to common ownership principles may result in prior art concerns, as any related patents may be used to challenge the novelty or non-obviousness of the claims in the new application. Hence, maintaining common ownership is critical to avoid hindrances related to overlapping patent rights.

The other options outline consequences that are either incorrect or not applicable within the context of common ownership issues, such as immediate revocation, inability to file subsequent applications, or no consequences. These do not accurately reflect the specific implications arising from the failure to meet common ownership requirements.