What should be included in the statement provided by Company A to overcome a 102(a)(2) rejection?

To successfully overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), which pertains to prior art that results from an application filed by another party and is related to the same subject matter, it is crucial for the applicant to establish their own rights and claims regarding the invention. One effective way to do this is by providing proof of common ownership prior to the filing date.

When the application that cites the prior art and the applicant's application are both owned by the same entity or person, this can eliminate any novelty issues arising from that prior art. This is because 35 U.S.C. § 102 states that certain disclosures do not affect the patentability of an invention if it is effectively owned by the same entity at the time of filing. Thus, demonstrating common ownership can help the applicant assert that the cited prior art does not create a novelty problem for their own application, reinforcing their claim to the invention.

The other choices, though potentially relevant in other contexts, do not specifically address the requirement to overcome a § 102(a)(2) rejection as effectively as proof of common ownership does. Evidence of independent invention and verification of novelty are not sufficient to negate the prior art reference’s effect on patentability. A resume of the